Haney v. Adams et al
Filing
75
ORDER STRIKING 63 Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment as Untimely; ORDER STRIKING 65 Defendants' Reply Filed August 4, 2011; and ORDER STRIKING 69 Motion to File Reply to Defendants' Reply Filed August 4, 2011, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/16/2011. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MONTE HANEY,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01104-AWI-GBC (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
UNTIMELY
(Doc. 63)
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ REPLY
FILED AUGUST 4, 2011
(Doc. 65)
ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO FILE REPLY
TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY FILED AUGUST
4, 2011
/ (Doc. 69)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Monte Haney (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July
5, 2007. Doc. 1. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on July 16,
2008, for: 1) excessive force on December 14, 2006, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by
defendants J.G. Oaks and D. Silva; 2) deprivation of outdoor exercise from December 15, 2006 to
March 15, 2007, in violation of the Eighth Amendment by defendants R. Botello, M. Rickman, F.
Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano; and 3) deprivation of outdoor exercise of African-American inmates in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause by defendants R. Botello, M.
Rickman, F. Oliver, G. Torres, T. Cano. Doc. 22; Doc. 28; Doc. 32.
On August 19, 2010, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in which the deadline
to file dispositive motions was on June 30, 2011. Doc. 36. On June 21, 2011, Defendants filed a
1
1
motion for summary judgment. Doc. 54; Doc. 55. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a cross-motion
2
for summary judgment. Doc. 63. On August 4, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for
3
extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Defendants
4
construed Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment as an opposition to their original motion
5
for summary Judgment and filed a reply. Doc. 64; Doc. 65. On August 22, 2011, the Court granted
6
limited additional discovery and relieved Plaintiff of the obligation of opposing Defendants’ motion
7
for summary judgment until resolution of pending discovery issue. Doc. 67. On August 23, 2011,
8
Plaintiff motioned for extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’ response in Doc. 65 and seeks
9
to construe Defendants’ response as an opposition to his cross-motion for summary judgment. Doc.
10
69.
11
Although Plaintiff was granted an extension to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for
12
summary judgment, Plaintiff did not motion to amend the Court’s scheduling and discovery order
13
filed on August 19, 2010. Therefore, Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is untimely.
14
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1.
16
Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment filed on July 29, 2011, is HEREBY
STRICKEN (Doc. 63);
17
2.
18
Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, filed August
4, 2011, is HEREBY STRICKEN (Doc. 65); and
19
3.
20
Plaintiff’s motion filed on August 23, 2011, for leave to file a reply to Defendants’
reply is HEREBY STRICKEN (Doc. 69).
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated:
0jh02o
November 16, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
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?
