Best v. Sonoma County Sheriffs Department

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESETTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; denying 100 Motion to Strike. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by EMAIL.

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BRIAN BEST, Plaintiff, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Case No. 4:19-cv-02252-YGR v. VIRGIL SMITH, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESETTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE Re: Dkt. Nos. 96, 100 Defendant. Pro se plaintiff Brian Best filed a motion to strike defendant Virgil Smith’s motion for 14 summary judgment. (See also Dkt. Nos. 96 (motion for summary judgment), 100 (motion to 15 strike).) Having carefully considered the briefing, the motion to strike is DENIED. Mr. Best’s 16 arguments are more appropriately included in an opposition to the pending motion for summary 17 judgment, and otherwise present at this time no appropriate basis or ground for the striking of the 18 pending motion for summary judgment. 19 Moreover, a review of the docket confirms that the parties are engaged in discovery in this 20 matter, and that several depositions are scheduled for April and May 2021. Because of the 21 ongoing discovery, as well as Mr. Best’s pro se status, the Court RESETS the briefing schedule on 22 the motion for summary judgment as follows: Mr. Best shall file an opposition to the motion for 23 summary judgment on or before June 18, 2021; Mr. Smith shall file a reply in support of the 24 motion for summary judgment on or before July 9, 2021; and the motion shall be heard on the 25 Court’s regular motion calendar on Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:00 PM PDT. 26 Finally, Ninth Circuit authority indicates that self-represented plaintiffs should be given 27 “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions at the time of 28 filing of the motions. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998); Woods v. 1 Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935, 940-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court provides the following 2 notice to Mr. Best: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Defendant is making a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which, if granted, will end your case by granting judgment in favor of Defendant. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e). The evidence in those documents must contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendant, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 14 See Rand, 154 F.3d at 962-63 (emphasis supplied). It is not uncommon, or oppressive, for 15 motions for summary judgment to be lengthy as they must be accompanied by actual evidence as 16 discussed above. 17 To the extent the Court has not already advised Mr. Best, he is reminded that the District 18 Court has produced a guide for self-represented/pro se litigants called Representing Yourself in 19 Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which provides instructions on how to proceed 20 at every stage of a case, including discovery, motions, and trial. It is available electronically 21 online at 22 Mr. Best is further reminded of the Legal Help Center. Assistance is available through the 23 Legal Help Center. Parties can make an appointment to speak with an attorney who can provide 24 basic legal information and assistance. The Help Center does not see people on a “drop-in” basis, 25 and will not be able to represent parties in their cases. There is no charge for this service. To make 26 an appointment with the Legal Help Center, Mr. Best may: (1) call 415-782-8982; or (2) email 27 The Help Center’s website is available at 28 2 1 This Order terminates Docket Number 100. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: April 26, 2021 4 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?