Hopkins v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 46

ORDER RE BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER VACATING HEARING (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (fj, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IVAN HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, JAMES TILTON, SCOTT PANG, and DOES 1­100, Defendants. / ORDER RE BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER VACATING HEARING No. C 08-00898 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff Ivan Hopkins, acting pro se, brought this lawsuit alleging that agents Tilton and Pang falsely arrested him and used excessive force against him, causing injuries. He claims that he was accused of being a parolee at large but that in fact he had already been discharged from parole. Plaintiff also requested the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's request to appoint counsel was denied (Dkt. No. 25). Defendants the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and James Tilton filed a motion to dismiss, and a July 2008 order dismissed the claims against those two defendants without leave to amend, leaving only the claims against agent Scott Pang (Dkt. No. 31). On January 21, 2009, defendant Pang filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the motion was scheduled for February 26, 2009. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff's brief in opposition to the motion, if he wished to file one, was due February 5, 2009.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

To date, plaintiff has filed no opposition to defendant's motion and has not otherwise responded to the motion. Because there is insufficient time to fully brief the motion by February 26, the hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff's brief in opposition to defendant's motion, if he is to file one, must be filed no later than FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2009. Plaintiff must either file a brief in opposition to the motion by that date, or submit a filing explaining why he has not done so. If plaintiff fails to respond by February 20, defendant's motion may be granted as unopposed. If plaintiff timely submits a brief in opposition to defendant's motion, defendant's reply brief will be due February 27, 2009. A hearing on the motion will be scheduled thereafter if need be.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2