Lal v. Felker et al

Filing 181

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/22/12 ordering that plaintiff's 10/17/12 motion 180 is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

AZHAR LAL,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:07-cv-2060 KJM EFB P

FELKER, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dckt.

18

No. 166. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion is due on or before November 18, 2012.

19

Dckt. No. 179. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the defendants exclude what plaintiff

20

deems to be “unnecessary arguments” from their summary judgment motion. Dckt. No. 180.

21

Plaintiff contends that the time for him to respond to the motion for summary judgment should

22

not start running until the instant motion is addressed because he presently has “no real

23

understanding of what he may have to litigate” and will only “have an understanding of the task”

24

after the court rules on the instant request. Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied as both procedurally and substantively improper.

25
26

////
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s Local

2

Rules. To the extent plaintiff finds defendants’ arguments to be unnecessary, abusive, or

3

irrelevant, plaintiff must follow the procedures set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure. Moreover, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for opposing a summary

5

judgment motion on August 29, 2012. See Dckt. No. 166 (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. with notice

6

to plaintiff pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012) and Rand v. Rowland, 154

7

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998)).

8
9

Finally, plaintiff should not assume that his requests, such as the one currently before the
court, will be granted, or that the mere filing of the request in any way relieves him of his

10

obligation to diligently prosecute his case and comply with the deadlines established by the

11

court.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 17, 2012 motion (Dckt.

13

No. 180) is denied.

14

DATED: October 22, 2012.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2