Hightower v. Director et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 19 Motion for Summary Judgment without Prejudice (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/22/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DIONNE R. HIGHTOWER,

Case No.:13-cv-01538-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9
10

USA,

Re: Dkt. No. 19
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff has filed a document that is entitled “Opposition and Copy of Right to Sue Letter

14

and Notice of Summary Judgment Motions and Rule Response from Plaintiff (hereinafter, the

15

“Motion”).

16

Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not, however, in compliance with Rule 56, which requires that a

17

party seeking summary judgment “identify[] each claim or defense . . . on which summary

18

judgment is sought” and “support the assertion by” by “citing to particular parts of materials in the

19

record.” Furthermore, the Motion is premature because the United States has not yet filed a

20

response to Plaintiff’s complaint or had an opportunity to conduct any meaningful discovery. See

21

Bazley v. Gates, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1674, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2011) (holding that

22

summary judgment motion was premature where plaintiff filed motion before answer was due and

23

discovery had not yet commenced). Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

24
25

The Motion purports to seek summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2013

26
27
28

________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge