Luckey v. Visalia Unified School District

Filing 50

Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment be denied without prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/24/2015. Motion referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 3/30/2015. (Figueroa, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY LUCKEY, 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 13 14 Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ECF NO. 47 15 Defendant. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS 16 17 18 On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff Timothy Luckey (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for summary 19 judgment. (ECF No. 47.) The motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for 20 Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72. (ECF No. 21 49.) 22 Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. On August 20, 2014, the Court issued the 23 Scheduling Order in this matter. The Scheduling Order mandated that any party who files a 24 motion for summary judgment must meet and confer with the opposing party to discuss the 25 issues raised in the motion and to arrive at a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts. (Scheduling 26 Order, at pg. 5:13-21.) Any party filing a motion for summary judgment must file a Joint 27 Statement of Undisputed Facts and certify that the parties met and conferred prior to filing the 28 motion. (Scheduling Order, at pg. 5:22-27.) 1 1 Plaintiff did not file a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts. Plaintiff did file a “New 2 Statement Of Undisputed Material Fact” which indicates that Plaintiff spoke with Defendant’s 3 counsel regarding a potential motion for summary judgment. However, it does not appear that 4 the parties made any attempt to draft a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts. 5 Further, Local Rule 260(a) requires the Statement of Undisputed Facts to enumerate 6 discretely (i.e., separately and distinctly) each of the specific material facts and cite the 7 particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or 8 other document relied upon to establish that fact. 9 Plaintiff’s New Statement of Undisputed Material Fact is simply a rambling narrative hat 10 fails to establish the elements of his claims. The “facts” stated therein are not enumerated 11 discretely. There are no citations to the particular portions of the evidence which supports each 12 discretely enumerated fact. Accordingly, it fails to comply with Local Rule 260(a). 13 While the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice on procedural grounds, it is 14 worth nothing that based upon the Court’s cursory review of the motion, it appears that the 15 evidence submitted by Plaintiff in support of his motion for summary judgment is insufficient to 16 support a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appears to misunderstand the summary 17 judgment process. Motions for summary judgment are appropriate in circumstances where there 18 is no genuine dispute between the parties regarding the facts of the case. Plaintiff’s own 19 evidence shows there is a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the facts of this 20 case. Plaintiff believes he was terminated and retaliated against due to his race. Plaintiff’s own 21 evidence shows that Defendant believes that Plaintiff was terminated due to neglect of duty, 22 insubordination, willful disobedience, violation of rules, policies procedures, and other “failure 23 of good behavior.” Clearly there is a dispute between the parties regarding the facts. Without 24 expressing an opinion one way or another regarding the facts, it is clear that the facts are in 25 dispute and Plaintiff’s claims must be resolved by trial, not by the summary judgment process. 26 As discussed above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion on procedural grounds because it 27 does not appear that the parties complied with the Court’s order to meet and confer. 28 Furthermore, Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 260’s requirements with respect to 2 1 motions for summary judgment and the formatting of the Statement of Undisputed Facts. The 2 Court denies Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to refile a motion for 3 summary judgment which satisfies the requirements established in the Court’s Scheduling Order 4 and the Local Rules. Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 5 6 summary judgment be DENIED without prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 7 8 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 9 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 10 and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 11 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 12 judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 14 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 15 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: February 24, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?