Jones v. Las Vegas Valley Water District et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 32 Motion for Summary Judgment After the Close of Discovery. FURTHER ORDERED that 35 Motion for Leave to Amend His Motion for Summary Judgment Order is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 38 Motion for Communication with the Court and 41 Motion for Communication with the Court are DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment on or before 6/6/12. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file any opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 6/6/12. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/24/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
TERRIS R. JONES, SR.,
11
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:11-CV-00435-KJD -PAL

12
v.

ORDER

13
14
15

LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Before the Court is Plaintiff Terris R. Jones’ Motion for Summary Judgment After the Close

18

of Discovery (#32). Defendants Las Vegas Valley Water District, Pat Mulroy, Patricia Maxwell,

19

Alan Schmidt, Juan Sanjurjo, Richard Tritley, and Richard Fox (“Defendants”) have filed an

20

opposition (#34). Plaintiff did not file a response.

21
22
23
24
25
26

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend His Motion for Summary
Judgment Order (#35). Defendants filed an opposition (#37).
Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#36). Plaintiff has not
responded to this Motion.
Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions for Communication With the Court (#38, 41).

1
2

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Courts must liberally construe the pleadings of pro se parties.

3

See United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (9th Cir. 1990). “[P]ro se litigants in the

4

ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.”

5

Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986). Pro se litigants must supply a minimum

6

factual basis for the claims they assert against defendants. Brazil v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 66 F.3d 193,

7

199 (9th Cir. 1995).

8

Plaintiff’s Motion fails to comply with even the most generous readings of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56

9

and Local Rules 7-2(a) 56-1. The Motion is one paragraph long and is devoid of any argument, facts,

10

or other information that would supply a basis for granting summary judgment. The federal and local

11

rules require Plaintiff to file points and authorities in support of his Motion and a statement of

12

undisputed facts showing that there is no dispute of fact and that he is entitled to summary judgment.

13

Plaintiff’s Motion is defective in both form and substance. Accordingly, the Motion is denied.

14

II. Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Summary Judgment

15

Shortly afer Plaintiff received Defendants’ opposition (#34) pointing out the deficiencies in

16

his Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff requested leave to amend his Motion (#35). Parties are

17

not required to seek leave to amend timely motions for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b).

18

Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file a motion for summary

19

judgment on or before June 6, 2012. If Plaintiff decides to file a motion for summary judgment, it

20

must comply in every respect with federal and local rules.

21

III. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

22

Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On

23

October 25, 2011 Plaintiff was provided with notice (#33) of the significance of summary judgment

24

pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland. Local Rule 7-2 provides that failure to

25

provide points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes consent to the grating of the

26

motion. However, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file a
2

1

response to Defendants’ Motion on or before June 6, 2012. If Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court

2

will grant Defendants’ Motion.

3

III. Motions for Communication With the Court

4

Plaintiff’s Motions for Communication With the Court request rulings on his pending

5

motions. Accordingly, they are now moot.

6

III. Conclusion

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment After the
Close of Discovery (#32) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend His Motion
for Summary Judgment Order(#35) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motions for Communication With the
Court (#38, 41) are DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment on

14

or before June 6, 2012. Any motion filed must comply in every respect with federal and local rules.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff file any opposition to Defendants’ Motion

16

for Summary Judgment on or before June 6, 2012. Failure to file an opposition will result in granting

17

of the Motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-2.

18

DATED this 24th day of May 2012.

19
20
21
22

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
3