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.

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 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.

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

[e-mail]. The Help Center’s website is available at

28

https://cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help.
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