Ramirez v. Haffner et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/17/2017 GRANTING plaintiff leave, nunc pro tunc, to file an amended opposition to the pending motions for summary judgment; plaintiff's 73 amended opposition is deemed timely filed; the Clerk shall detach the exhibits from plaintiff's original opposition (ECF No. 71 at 61-132), and append them to plaintiff's amended opposition as ECF No. 73 - 2; plaintiff's 12/16/2016 and 1/10/2017 oppositions are DISREGARDED; within 14 days, plaintiff shall file a supplemental exhibit list as set forth in this order; and defendants are GRANTED 14 days thereafter to file their replies to plaintiff's amended opposition. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL ENRIQUE RAMIREZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2079 GEB KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

GARY HAFFNER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Defendants’ motions for summary

18

judgment are pending. On December 9, 2016, plaintiff was granted a second extension of time to

19

file an opposition to the motions for summary judgment. On December 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a

20

133 page opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment. On January 10, 2017,

21

plaintiff filed a 305 page opposition. On January 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a 61 page opposition to

22

the motions, including his own revised declaration, and accompanied by a letter in which plaintiff

23

asked the court to disregard the original opposition, but to file the amended opposition together

24

with the exhibits “in the file or attached to the original opposition.” (ECF No. 73-1.)

25

First, plaintiff is admonished that he should seek court permission before filing multiple

26

oppositions to a motion. Local Rule 230(l) provides for the filing of an opposition and a reply.

27
28

Second, it appears that many of the exhibits appended to plaintiff’s 305 page filing are
duplicative of those submitted with his original opposition. The defendants and the court are not
1

1

required to ferret through plaintiff’s exhibits to determine which exhibits are duplicates and which

2

are not. Moreover, plaintiff’s original opposition refers to Exhibits A through D, as does

3

plaintiff’s amended opposition. Therefore, the court will partially grant plaintiff’s request and

4

direct the Clerk of the Court to detach the exhibits appended to his original opposition, with the

5

exception of plaintiff’s own declaration which he has subsequently amended.

6

Plaintiff is granted fourteen days to review his second 305 page opposition, filed January

7

10, 2017 (ECF No. 72), to determine which, if any, additional exhibits he wishes to be considered

8

in connection with his January 11, 2017 amended opposition (ECF No. 73). Plaintiff is not

9

granted leave to file another opposition, amended or otherwise. Rather, plaintiff shall file a

10

supplemental exhibit list that makes clear which additional exhibits he intends to be considered

11

with his amended opposition. Plaintiff may refer to the particular document filed on January 10,

12

2017, or he may re-submit the exhibits. In any event, plaintiff must clearly identify the document

13

so that the defendants and the court can determine which document plaintiff is referencing.

14

Plaintiff shall not re-submit exhibits that were appended to his original opposition.
Plaintiff’s original and second oppositions are disregarded. (ECF No. 71, 72.) Plaintiff is

15
16

cautioned that failure to timely file his supplemental exhibit list will result in consideration of

17

only those exhibits provided with his original opposition. (ECF No. 71 at 61-132.) In other

18

words, if plaintiff does not identify any supplemental exhibits, the court will not review the

19

exhibits appended to his unauthorized 305 page filing.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. Plaintiff is granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to file an amended opposition to the pending

22

motions for summary judgment;

23

2. Plaintiff’s amended opposition (ECF No. 73) is deemed timely filed;

24

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to detach the exhibits from plaintiff’s original

25

opposition (ECF No. 71 at 61-132), and append them to plaintiff’s amended opposition as ECF

26

No. 73-2;
4. Plaintiff’s December 16, 2016 and January 10, 2017 oppositions are disregarded;

27
28

////
2

1
2
3

5. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a supplemental
exhibit list as set forth above; and
6. Defendants are granted fourteen days thereafter in which to file their replies to

4

plaintiff’s amended opposition.

5

Dated: January 17, 2017

6
7
8
/rami2079.exs

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3