Gorrell v. Sneath et al

Filing 111

ORDER VACATING THE HEARING DATE of September 26, 2013 and Taking Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Under Submission, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/23/2013. MOTION 79 SUBMITTED.(Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILSON GORRELL,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

THOMAS SNEATH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-0554 - JLT
ORDER VACATING THE HEARING DATE OF
SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 AND TAKING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT UNDER SUBMISSION

16
17

Defendants Thomas Sneath, Hasmukh Shah, and National Toxicology Laboratories

18

(“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment on August 22, 2013. (Doc. 79). At that time,

19

Defendants served Plaintiff Wilson Gorrell, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this action, with a

20

notice pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry (9th Cir. 1988) 849 F.2d 409 and Rand v. Rowland (9th Cir.

21

1988) 154 F.3d 952), which set forth the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment

22

(Doc. 79-1).

23

Any opposition by Plaintiff to the motion for summary judgment was to be filed no later than

24

September 12, 2013. Despite service of the notice, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition Defendants’

25

motion for summary judgment.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), “No party will be entitled to be heard

26
27
28

1

In an abundance of caution, the Court has waited more than a week after the deadline for Plaintiff to file an
opposition to the motion prior to taking the matter under submission. Notably, recently, the Court has received several
motions from Plaintiff indicating a mailing date after the opposition was due. (See Docs. 104, 106 and 107).

1

1

in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if no opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by

2

that party.” Accordingly, Plaintiff would not be entitled to be heard at any hearing on the motion for

3

summary judgment. In addition, under Local Rule 230(g), “[a] motion may be submitted upon the

4

record and briefs on file . . . if the Court so orders.” The Court has reviewed the motion and its

5

supporting documents, and finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to

6

Local Rule 230(g).

7
8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
taken under submission, and the hearing date of September 26, 2013 is VACATED.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 23, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2