Brown v. Adams et al
Filing
42
ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's 38 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT with Leave to re-file; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 41 Motion Requesting Reply (Response) to Petitioner Brown's Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Mary H. Murguia on 05/18/2010. Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/21/2010.(Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. D. Adams, et al., Defendants. Clyde Brown, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 1-08-1116-PHX-MHM ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Reply (Response) to Petitioner Brown's Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 41) On February 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 108-page Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 38) Thereafter, on March 11, 2010, Defendants filed an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion because he failed to include a separate statement of undisputed material facts with citations to evidence to support these facts as required by Local Rule 260(a). (Doc. # 39) The Court will not deny Plaintiff's summary judgment motion on this basis but will require Plaintiff to submit a revised Motion for Summary Judgment "accompanied by a `Statement of Undisputed Facts' that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied upon to establish that fact . . . ." See Local Rule 260(a). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED directing Plaintiff to submit a revised Motion for Summary Judgment accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts with citations to specific evidence to support each fact within 30 days of the date of this order. In light of the Court's ruling above, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment with leave to re-file as ordered above. (Doc. # 38) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Reply (Response) to Petitioner Brown's Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 41) DATED this 18th day of May, 2010.
-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?
