Carreon v. Banke et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/15/2013 DENYING 45 Motion. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL CARREON, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 2:11-cv-2952-WBS-EFB P

S. BANKE, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 7, 2013, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 36. After

20

two extensions of time, plaintiff filed an opposition. ECF No. 43. Thereafter, defendants filed a

21

reply. ECF No. 44. Plaintiff now requests leave to file a “reply” to defendants’ reply, so that he

22

can present evidence in support of his claims. See ECF No. 45 (stating that some of his legal

23

property was misplaced and that he was unable to file it with his opposition). Neither the Federal

24

Rules of Civil Procedure nor the court’s Local Rules authorize such a filing. Moreover,

25

defendants’ motion notified plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment

26

motion, including the requirement that he support his claims with evidence. Plaintiff had ample

27

time to prepare his opposition and to submit evidence in support of his claims. At the time

28

plaintiff filed his opposition, he did not indicate that it was incomplete in any way or state that
1

1

any of his evidence or legal property had been misplaced. See ECF No. 43. Plaintiff fails to

2

demonstrate good cause for an order allowing him to supplement his opposition, as requested.

3
4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 45) is denied.
Dated: August 15, 2013.

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