Johnson v. Sandy et al

Filing 184

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/01/16 ordering plaintiff's motion to amend 178 is granted to the extent that the court will consider plaintiff's response to defendants' statements of undisputed facts 181 . The motion is denied in all other respects. Defendants shall have 10 days from service of this order to reply to plaintiff's response to their statements of undisputed facts 181 . Defendants' motion to strike 182 is denied. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH JOHNSON, 12 No. 2:12-cv-2922 JAM AC P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 E. SANDY, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motion to amend various motion-related 19 documents (ECF No. 178) and defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s surreply (ECF No. 182). 20 Shortly after briefing of defendants’ motions for summary judgment was completed, 21 plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend his response to the motions and his own motion 22 for summary judgment in order to comply with the proper procedures. ECF No. 178. Defendants 23 opposed the motion (ECF Nos. 179, 180) and plaintiff proceeded to file a response to defendants’ 24 statements of undisputed facts (ECF No. 181). Defendants have moved to strike plaintiff’s 25 response as an unauthorized surreply. ECF No. 182. 26 Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted in part. The motion will be granted to the 27 extent that the court will consider his response to defendants’ statements of undisputed facts and 28 allow defendants an opportunity to reply. 1 1 To the extent plaintiff may seek to make any other amendment to his response, the motion 2 will be denied because plaintiff has not provided a proposed copy of the amended response. 3 Additionally, though plaintiff states that he is ignorant of the proper procedures, all three sets of 4 defendants provided him with a Rand1 notice which explained the requirements for opposing a 5 motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 164-1, 165-1, 166. The notice provided by defendants 6 represented by the Attorney General’s Office also included an explanation of the requirements 7 under Local Rule 260 related to responding to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts. ECF 8 No. 166 at 4. 9 As for plaintiff’s request to amend his own motion for summary judgment, he previously 10 sought leave to re-file his untimely motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 172) and that motion 11 was denied (ECF No. 173). Plaintiff does not have a summary-judgment motion before the court 12 and his motion for leave to amend will therefore be denied. Because the court will consider 13 plaintiff’s response to defendants’ statements of undisputed facts and allow defendants to reply, 14 defendants’ motion to strike will be denied. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 178) is granted to the extent that the court will 17 consider plaintiff’s response to defendants’ statements of undisputed facts (ECF No. 181). The 18 motion is denied in all other respects. 19 20 2. Defendants shall have ten days from service of this order to reply to plaintiff’s response to their statements of undisputed facts (ECF No. 181). 21 22 3. Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 182) is denied. DATED: September 1, 2016 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 2

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?