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)
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?