Laneley v. Garcia et al

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 68 Motion for Summary Judgment or Judgment as a Matter of Law, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/8/2020. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY LANGLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
E. GARCIA; G. COOK,

15

Case No. 1:16-cv-01299-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
(Doc. 68)

Defendants.

16
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of

17
18

Civil Procedure 56, or for judgment as a matter of law in a jury trial, pursuant to Rule 50. (Doc.

19

68.) The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions was March 27, 2020 (Doc. 50), and this

20

case is set for trial on August 9, 2021 (Doc. 67). Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under

21

Rule 56 is therefore untimely, and his motion under Rule 50 is premature. Furthermore, as the

22

Court described in its findings and recommendations to deny Defendants’ motion for summary

23

judgment (Doc. 59), this case presents genuine disputes of material fact, which makes summary

24

judgment inappropriate.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 8, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2