Venson v. Jackson et al

Filing 116

ORDER Requiring Defendant to Re-Serve Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff. Defendant to re-serve the motion for summary judgement on Plaintiff by 9/11/20. Plaintiff's opposition due by 10/9/2020, Defendant's reply due by 10/23/2020.Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 9/9/20.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jmo)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Case No.: 18CV2278-BAS (BLM) CLIFFORD ALLAN VENSON, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO RE-SERVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, 11 12 v. 13 SERGEANT Q. JACKSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff Clifford Allan Venson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se 19 and in forma pauperis, filed a second amended complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983 against Defendants Q. Jackson, R. Hernandez, A. S. Diaz, and J. Knight. ECF No. 60. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On June 29, 2020, Defendant Knight filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the following: (1) Plaintiff did not exhaust the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) available administrative grievance procedures as to his claims against Defendant Knight; (2) Plaintiff’s cause of action for retaliation under the First Amendment against Defendant Knight fails as a matter of law; and (3) Defendant Knight is entitled to qualified immunity. 28 1 18cv2278-BAS (BLM) 1 ECF No. 101 at 2. Plaintiff timely opposed the motion on July 13, 2020, however, Plaintiff’s 2 opposition states that he opposed the motion for summary judgment without receiving a copy 3 of the motion. ECF No. 107. Specifically, Plaintiff declares that he “did not receive a copy of 4 the summary judgment ECF 101” and that he submitted his “opposition to defendants [sic] 5 motion based on Court order [ECF No. 103, Klingele/Rand Notice and Scheduling Order].” ECF 6 No. 107 at 6 at ¶ 2. 7 Defendant served the motion for summary judgement [ECF No. 101] on Plaintiff on June 8 29, 2020, but the address listed on the certificate of service [ECF No. 102]1 uses a different zip 9 code and PO Box than the address listed on the Notice of Change of Address that Plaintiff filed 10 on December 12, 2019 [see ECF No. 66]2, the address listed on several of Plaintiff’s pleadings 11 [see ECF Nos. 75, 78, 80, 107, 109, 114]3, and the address listed for Salinas Valley State Prison 12 on the CDCR website.4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to re-serve the motion for 13 summary judgement on Plaintiff by September 11, 2020. 14 supplemental opposition, he must do so by October 9, 2020. Defendant’s reply, if any, must 15 be filed by October 23, 2020. IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 If Plaintiff wishes to file a Dated: 9/9/2020 18 19 20 21 22 23 24                                                         1 Clifford Allan Venson D-92349, Salinas Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1020/D6-201, Soledad, CA 93460. 2 25 26 27 28 Clifford Allan Venson, Salinas Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1020/D6-201, Soledad, CA 93960. 3 Clifford Allan Venson, D92349, Salinas Valley State Prison, P.O. Box 1050, Soledad, CA 93960. 4 See (“Mailing Addresses Institution: P. O. Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960-1020 [and] Inmate Mail: P. O. Box 1050, Soledad, CA 93960-1050.”). 2 18cv2278-BAS (BLM)

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?