Fulford v. Griffith et al
Filing
48
ORDER by JMagistrate Judge Maria-Elena James denying #46 Motion to Dismiss; denying #46 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FRED FULFORD,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
DON M. GRIFFITH,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 16-cv-00770-MEJ
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS'
AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 46
12
Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
13
14
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court issue an order stating
15
that Plaintiff’s opposition to the amended summary judgment motion is correctly docketed at
16
Docket Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45; stating that Defendant’s reply in support of his amended
17
summary judgment motion was due June 5, 2017; stating that Defendant failed to comply with the
18
Rand requirement; denying Defendant’s amended summary judgment motion; and scheduling a
19
settlement conference. Dkt No. 46. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
20
PART.
21
The motion is GRANTED in that the Court will consider Plaintiff’s pleadings docketed at
22
Docket Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, and 45 as the opposition to the amended summary judgment motion;
23
and in that the Court has already referred the case to settlement proceedings, Dkt. No. 44.
24
The motion is DENIED in that the Court declines to deny Defendant’s summary judgment
25
motion. Plaintiff is incorrect that Defendant’s amended summary judgment motion failed to
26
comply with the Ninth Circuit’s Rand requirement. The amended summary judgment motion
27
provided Plaintiff with the required Rand notice, Dkt. No. 34 at 4, the text of which can be found
28
1
at Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998).1 In addition, Defendant’s confusion about
2
whether a reply brief was warranted was understandable, and Defendant properly sought guidance
3
from the Court regarding when to file the reply brief. The Court declined to set a deadline for the
4
reply brief and instead referred the case to settlement proceedings. Because this case is stayed
5
pending settlement proceedings, there is also no need to currently address Defendant’s amended
6
summary judgment motion.
7
This order terminates Dkt. No. 46.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
Dated:
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
July 11, 2017
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff argues that the Rand notice is approximately one-and-a-half pages and provides a copy
of a Rand notice provided in an unrelated case. Dkt. No. 45. The Rand notice that Plaintiff
provides is from a case in the Eastern District of California and appears to contain additional
language required by the Eastern District of California, which is not required in the Northern
District of California.
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?