Luckey v. Visalia Unified School District

Filing 46

ORDER (Doc. 40 , 41 , 44 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/30/2014. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants December 18, 2014 and Plaintiffs September 19, 2014 and December 1, 2014 filings are DISREGARDED by the Court.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY LUCKEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB
ORDER

v.
VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.

16
17

On December 18, 2014, Defendant Visalia Unified School District (“Defendant”) filed

18 what purports to be an opposition to Plaintiff Timothy Luckey’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for
19 summary judgment. (ECF No. 44.) However, Plaintiff has not filed any motion for summary
20 judgment. Accordingly, the Court will disregard Defendant’s filing.
21

On September 19, 2014 and December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed two documents; both

22 entitled “Undisputed Material Fact.” (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) However, neither filing appears to be a
23 motion. Neither filing asks the Court to enter summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The
24 filings appear to merely be a list of facts which Plaintiff contends are undisputed. From the
25 Court’s experience, it is not uncommon to receive similar filings from pro se litigants who are
26 unfamiliar with legal proceedings. These filings are functionally meaningless. Plaintiff is
27 advised that, generally speaking, unless he is asking for specific relief from the Court through a
28 properly noticed motion, he is not required to file anything with the Court unless the Court

1

1 orders Plaintiff to file it, or it is required by the Local Rules or the Rules of Federal Procedure
2 (such as an opposition to a motion filed by Defendant). Since Plaintiff’s filings are not motions,
3 are not oppositions to a motion filed by Defendant, and were not otherwise required by Court
4 order, Local Rule, or a Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court will disregard Plaintiff’s September
5 19, 2014 and December 1, 2014 filings.
Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s December 18,

6

7 2014 and Plaintiff’s September 19, 2014 and December 1, 2014 filings are DISREGARDED by
8 the Court.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated:

December 30, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2