Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01066/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01066-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 Moreover, the court notes that the statement itself is disorganized and

unworkable. Plaintiff fails to identify specific facts by number, instead listing them in

unenumerated fashion with confusing captions. In short, it is impossible for the court to

ascertain from reading the statement either the source or location of any evidentiary facts that

plaintiff relies upon.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON JERMAINE SAPP,

Plaintiff, No. C 03-1066 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication came on for hearing before this court

on July 26, 2006. Plaintiff, Ramon Jermaine Sapp (“plaintiff”), appeared through his

counsel, Trudy Martin. Defendant, Alameda County Medical Center dba Highland Hospital

(“defendant”), appeared through its counsel, Martin Everson. Having read the parties’

papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good

cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion, for the reasons stated at

the hearing, and summarized as follows.

Preliminarily, plaintiff has improperly submitted a separate statement of disputed

material facts in opposition to defendants’ motion. Civil L.R. 56-2 explicitly states that no

separate statement of undisputed facts or joint statement of undisputed facts shall be

submitted without a court order. Plaintiff’s separate statement, despite being labeled a

statement of “disputed” material facts, falls within the ambit of the local rule, and is

prohibited, since no prior leave of court was sought. Accordingly, it is hereby stricken.1

 

Case 4:03-cv-01066-PJH Document 97 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

With respect to the merits of the parties’ arguments, summary adjudication of

plaintiff’s civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is appropriate if “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,

if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [defendant] is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FRCP 56(c). Material facts are those which may

affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is

sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Where, as here, the moving

party has pointed out an absence of evidence to support’s the opposing party’s claims, the

opposing party “must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat [the motion].” See id.

at 257. 

Here, plaintiff utterly fails to meet his burden to come forward with affirmative

evidence in support of his claim. His opposition brief, while containing sweeping factual

statements that purportedly prove the presence of disputed material facts, provides almost

no citations to supporting factual evidence. On the few occasions that plaintiff does include

citations, plaintiff either cites to the separate statement – the impropriety of which is

discussed above – or to defendant’s supporting affidavits, without proper pincites, and for

corroboration of facts that are not, in fact, material to plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, plaintiff

fails to even suggest the presence of a materially disputed fact, let alone meet his burden

to establish one. 

In view of the above, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary

adjudication of plaintiff’s second cause of action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, as to defendant Highland Hospital. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01066-PJH Document 97 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2