Marotz v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 49

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 45 Motion for Summary Judgment.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
WILLIAM LEON MAROTZ,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOCKET NO.
45]

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL,

15

No. C-13-01677 DMR

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17
18

Plaintiff William Leon Marotz, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for summary

19

judgment. [Docket No. 45.] This one-page motion states, in total: “Plaintiff lists all ‘causes of

20

action’ in [sic] complaint (having the full weight as an affidavit) on which summary judgment is

21

sought. The Plaintiff believes there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts and plaintiff is

22

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

23

A court shall grant summary judgment “if . . . there is no genuine issue as to any material

24

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden of

25

establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party, see Celotex

26

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986), and the court must view the evidence in the light

27

most favorable to the non-movant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)

28

(citation omitted). A moving party may meet this burden by “‘showing . . . that there is an absence

1

of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.’” Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212

2

F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325) (quotation marks omitted).

3

Plaintiff has presented no facts in support of his motion for summary judgment, and instead

4

urges the court to accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. The court

5

notes the sufficiency of those allegations are currently being challenged by the Defendant City and

6

County of San Francisco in its pending motion to dismiss. [Docket No. 27.] Accordingly, Plaintiff

7

has not met his burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and the court

8

sua sponte denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: December 18, 2013

13

DONNA M. RYU

14

United States Magistrate Judge

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

2