Ricks v. Levine, et al.
Filing
55
AMENDED ORDER re 54 Order Regarding Service of Defendant Levine's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/7/17. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
SCOTT K. RICKS,
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
G. LEVINE, et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:15-cv-01150-AWI-BAM (PC)
AMENDED ORDER REGARDING
SERVICE OF DEFENDANT LEVINE’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT1
(ECF No. 49, 52, 53)
16
Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
18
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is related to Ricks v.
19
Austria, et al., 1:15-cv-01147-AWI-BAM, and Ricks v. Onyeye, et al., 1:15-cv-1148-AWI-
20
BAM. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
21
Local Rule 302.
On July 7, 2017, Defendant G. Levine, M.D. filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF
22
23
No. 49.) The motion and supporting documents were filed with a certificate of service by mail,
24
declaring that the documents were served by mail on Plaintiff at his address of record on the
25
same day the document was filed with the Clerk of the Court.
26
27
28
1
The original order issued on August 7, 2017 gave an incorrect address for defense counsel. This
amended order has the correct address.
1
1
On July 12, 2017, pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), Rand v.
2
Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.
3
1988), the Court issued an order notifying Plaintiff of his rights and the requirements for
4
opposing the motion. (ECF No. 50.)
5
On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition to granting Defendant Levine’s
6
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff contends that he received the Court’s
7
order issued July 12, 2017, but never received any copy of Defendant’s motion and has no idea
8
what it states. (Id.) Plaintiff further contends that checking the mail log books would substantiate
9
his representations. Plaintiff also states that he generally opposes any granting of summary
10
judgment in Defendants’ favor in this case.
11
On August 4, 2017, Defendant Levine filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion
12
for summary judgment, with a declaration of counsel in support. (ECF No. 53.) Defense counsel
13
declares that Plaintiff had not advised counsel that he had never received the motion for
14
summary judgment, but if Plaintiff had, he would have re-served Plaintiff with another copy of
15
the motion. However, Plaintiff has not provided any different address or procedure to ensure that
16
he receives the motion, if there was some reason that he did not receive it. Defendant Levine
17
asks that the Court require Plaintiff to inform them of any such updated address or procedure so
18
that he can be properly re-served. The Court finds Defendant Levine’s request reasonable, and
19
that in the interests of justice the motion should be re-served.
20
Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that:
21
1.
Within ten (10) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall notify Defendant
22
Levine’s counsel, Mr. Aaron T. Schultz, of Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi, 2300 Contra
23
Costa Boulevard, Suite 350, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 (telephone: 925-930-9090 ext. 534), of
24
Plaintiff’s mailing address and any procedures necessary for him to receive service of Defendant
25
Levine’s motion for summary judgment;
26
27
28
2.
Within five (5) days of receipt of Plaintiff’s information, Defendant Levine shall
re-serve his motion for summary judgement on Plaintiff;
3.
Within twenty-one (21) days of the service of Defendant Levine’s motion for
2
1
summary judgment, Plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition or statement of non-opposition to
2
that motion. Defendant Levine shall be permitted the usual opportunity to file and serve a reply
3
under Local Rule 230(l) to any opposition that Plaintiff makes;
4
5
6
7
4.
No extensions of time of these deadlines will be granted without a request
supported by a showing of good cause; and
5.
The parties are warned that the failure to comply with this order may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
August 7, 2017
11
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?