Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 10-cv-1848 MCE KJN P

vs.

WARDEN SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND

 / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are cross-motions for summary

judgment.

On September 2, 2011, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition to their

summary judgment motion. Defendants’ reply contains new evidence, i.e. the declarations of

defendants Colon and Hall. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted twenty-one days from the date of

this order to file a supplemental opposition addressing this new evidence. See Provenz v. Miller,

102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We agree with the Seventh Circuit, which held that

‘[w]here new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district

court should not consider the new evidence without giving the [non-]movant an opportunity to

respond.’”). Defendants may file a supplemental reply within seven days thereafter.

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 76 Filed 09/07/11 Page 1 of 2
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

2

In their summary judgment motion, defendants also argue that in failing to

respond to requests for admissions, plaintiff has admitted that defendants did not violate his

constitutional rights. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3) (a matter is admitted unless,

within thirty days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the

requesting party a written answer or objection . . .). For example, defendants argue that by

failing to respond to request for admission one (“Hall did not violate your rights under the First

Amendment”), plaintiff has admitted that defendant Hall did not violate his First Amendment

rights.

Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause for his

failure to respond to defendants’ request for admissions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the date

of this order, plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to defendants’ summary judgment

motion; defendants may file a supplemental reply within seven days thereafter; within twenty-one

days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause for his failure to respond to defendants’

request for admissions. 

DATED: September 6, 2011

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

tur1848.fb

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 76 Filed 09/07/11 Page 2 of 2