Baker v. Solano County Jail et al

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 07/17/12 vacating 86 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 71 Motion for Summary Judgment. Within 30 days from the date of this order, defendants shall file and re-serve the motion for sum mary judgment, accompanied by the attached notice to plaintiff under Rand. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff shall file his opposition within 21 days from the date defendants re-file their motion. Any reply shall be filed 14 days thereafter. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JERRY W. BAKER,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:10-cv-1208 GEB KJN P

C/O SMITH, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On June 7, 2012, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations that were

20

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

21

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On July 6, 2012, plaintiff filed an

22

unverified document entitled “Response to Summary Judgment,” raising specific factual

23

allegations as to defendant Smith only. (Dkt. No. 89.) On July 9, 2012, defendants filed a reply.

24

(Dkt. No. 90.) Defendants contend that plaintiff’s “opposition” is untimely, and if construed as

25

objections, is “legally defective and completely inadequate.” (Id. at 2.)

26

////
1

1

However, recently the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring that all prisoners

2

proceeding pro se must be provided contemporaneous notice of certain requirements for

3

opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, __F.3d __, 2012 WL 2626912,*1,

4

*5, (9th Cir. July 6, 2012 ), citing Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); see

5

also Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). The district court may

6

provide such notice if defendants fail to do so. Woods, 2012 WL 2626912 at *5. When

7

provided by defendant, the notification must be set forth in “a separate document, served with the

8

moving papers, and state[] that the court has required that it be given.” Rand, 154 F.3d at 960;

9

Woods, 2012 WL 2626912 at *4. These requirements apply to both “pending and future cases.”

10
11

Woods at *6.
The instant motion for summary judgment was filed on October 12, 2011, and

12

apparently contained no notice under Rand or Klingele. (Dkt. No. 71.) Although the court

13

earlier provided notice concerning the requirements of Rand and Klingele, it was issued on

14

September 20, 2010, over a year before the motion was filed. (Dkt. No. 22.) Such is not fair

15

notice under Woods. Id. at *1. In addition, as noted by defendants, plaintiff has been in and out

16

of jail since the filing of this action. This raises concerns that plaintiff may not have retained, or

17

have current access to, defendants’ motion. Woods at *5. Therefore, the court finds that the

18

June 7, 2012 findings and recommendations must be vacated, and defendants’ motion for

19

summary judgment is denied without prejudice to its re-filing, so long as the renewed motion is

20

accompanied by the notice required by Woods, as set forth below.

21
22

Once the motion is re-filed, the parties are cautioned that this court is not inclined
to entertain requests for extensions of time.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. The June 7, 2012 findings and recommendations (dkt. no. 86) are vacated;

25

2. Defendants’ October 12, 2011 motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 71) is

26

denied without prejudice;
2

1

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendants shall file and re-serve

2

the motion for summary judgment, accompanied by the attached notice to plaintiff under Rand.

3

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff shall file his opposition within twenty-one days from the

4

date defendants re-file their motion. Any reply shall be filed fourteen days thereafter.

5

DATED: July 17, 2012

6
7

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9

bake1208.vac

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3

1

Rand Notice to Prisoners Proceeding Pro Se

2

The court directed defendants to provide this notice as required by
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and
Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). Woods v.
Carey, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012).

3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiff is advised that the following requirements apply for
opposing a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56. Such a motion is a request for an order for judgment in
favor of the defendant without trial. A defendant’s motion for
summary judgment will set forth the facts that the defendant
contends are not reasonably subject to dispute and that entitle the
defendant to judgment.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

To oppose a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must show
proof of his or her claims. Plaintiff may do this in one or more of
the following ways. Plaintiff may rely on plaintiff’s statements
made under penalty of perjury in the complaint if the complaint
shows that plaintiff has personal knowledge of the matters stated
and plaintiff specifies those parts of the complaint on which
plaintiff relies. Unsigned affidavits or declarations will be
stricken, and affidavits or declarations not signed under penalty of
perjury have no evidentiary value. Plaintiff may serve and file one
or more affidavits or declarations setting forth the facts that
plaintiff believes prove plaintiff’s claims; the person who signs an
affidavit or declaration must have personal knowledge of the facts
stated. Plaintiff may rely on written records, but plaintiff must
prove that the records are what plaintiff asserts they are. Plaintiff
may rely on all or any part of the transcript of one or more
depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions obtained in
this proceeding.

17
18
19
20

If plaintiff fails to contradict the defendant’s evidence with
counteraffidavits or other admissible evidence, the court may
accept defendant’s evidence as true and grant the motion. If there
is some good reason why such facts are not available to plaintiff
when required to oppose a motion for summary judgment, the
court will consider a request to postpone consideration of the
defendant’s motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

21
22
23
24
25
26

If plaintiff does not serve and file a written opposition to the
motion, or a request to postpone consideration of the motion, the
court may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to
the defendant’s motion. See L.R. 230(l).
If the court grants the motion for summary judgment, whether
opposed or unopposed, judgment will be entered for the defendant
without a trial and the case will be closed as to that defendant. In
the present case, summary judgment for defendant would end the
entire case.