Cooper v. Kaur, et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/23/12 ORDERING that plaintiff's 69 motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) is DENIED; Plaintiff is granted 21 days from the date of service of this order to file an opposition to defendant Nakus motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed in this action against defendant Naku, he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss this defendant; and defendant Naku may file a reply, if any, within seven days of service of plaintiffs opposition.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TROY COOPER,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-1057 GEB DAD P

Defendants.

ORDER

vs.
KAUR, et al.,

/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking

17

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment, or

18

alternatively a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, brought on

19

behalf of defendant Naku. In response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff has filed a “motion to

20

deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, motion to dismiss.” In

21

plaintiff’s motion, he argues that he is unable at this time to “cite case law to justify opposition to

22

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or to dismiss plaintiff’s claim.”

23

The court has construed plaintiff’s motion as a motion pursuant to Rule 56(d)(1)

24

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is advised that his inability to cite case law in

25

support of his opposition is not grounds for denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment

26

and motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (“If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or
1

1

declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,

2

the court may . . . defer considering the motion or deny it”). Accordingly, the court will deny

3

plaintiff’s motion. However, in the interest of justice, the court will grant plaintiff twenty-one

4

days to file an opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss.

5

Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed in this action against defendant Naku, he

6

may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss this defendant.

7

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) (Doc. No. 69) is denied;

9

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to file

10

an opposition to defendant Naku’s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for

11

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed

12

in this action against defendant Naku, he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss this defendant;

13

and

14

3. Defendant Naku may file a reply, if any, within seven days of service of

15

plaintiff’s opposition.

16

DATED: April 23, 2012.

17
18
19

DAD:9
coop1057.56d(2)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2