Harris v. State of California et al
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 07/10/12 ordering plaintiff's opposition to defendant Thomas's 04/30/12 motion for summary judgment is due by 08/08/12. Any reply to plaintiff's opposition shall be due no later than 14 days after service of the opposition. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WAYDE HOLLIS HARRIS,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2:09-cv-1557 GEB CKD P
vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Woods v. Carey, No. 09-15548
17
(9th Cir. July 6, 2012), the court hereby reminds plaintiff of the following requirements for
18
opposing the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Thomas on April 30, 2012.1 The
19
motion arises under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a motion is a request
20
for an order for judgment in favor of the defendant without trial. A defendant’s motion for
21
summary judgment will set forth the facts that the defendant contends are not reasonably subject
22
to dispute and that entitle the defendant to judgment. To oppose a motion for summary
23
judgment, plaintiff must show proof of his or her claims. Plaintiff may do this in one or more of
24
the following ways. Plaintiff may rely on plaintiff’s statements made under penalty of perjury in
25
26
1
Plaintiff was also advised of these requirements on November 9, 2010.
1
1
the complaint if the complaint shows that plaintiff has personal knowledge of the matters stated
2
and plaintiff specifies those parts of the complaint on which plaintiff relies. Plaintiff may serve
3
and file one or more affidavits or declarations setting forth the facts that plaintiff believes prove
4
plaintiff’s claims; the person who signs an affidavit or declaration must have personal knowledge
5
of the facts stated. Plaintiff may rely on written records, but plaintiff must prove that the records
6
are what plaintiff asserts they are. Plaintiff may rely on all or any part of the transcript of one or
7
more depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions obtained in this proceeding. If
8
plaintiff fails to contradict the defendant’s evidence with counteraffidavits or other admissible
9
evidence, the court may accept defendant’s evidence as true and grant the motion. If there is
10
some good reason why such facts are not available to plaintiff when required to oppose a motion
11
for summary judgment, the court will consider a request to postpone consideration of the
12
defendant’s motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). If plaintiff does not serve and file a written
13
opposition to the motion, or a request to postpone consideration of the motion, the court may
14
consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to the defendant’s motion. See L.R. 230(l).
15
If the court grants the motion for summary judgment, whether opposed or unopposed, judgment
16
will be entered for the defendant without a trial and the case will be closed as to that defendant.
17
18
Unsigned affidavits or declarations will be stricken, and affidavits or declarations
not signed under penalty of perjury have no evidentiary value.
19
20
Plaintiff now having received the notice required under Woods v. Carey, No. 0915548 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
21
1. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant Thomas’s April 30, 2012 motion for
22
summary judgment is due by August 8, 2012. Failure to file an opposition by August 8, 2012
23
will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
24
Procedure 41(b).
25
/////
26
/////
2
1
2
3
2. Any reply to plaintiff’s opposition shall be due no later than 14 days after
service of the opposition.
Dated: July 10, 2012
4
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
1
harr1557.not
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?