Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01260/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01260-11/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

RYAN BRAN KNOWLES-BROWDER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1260 FCD DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL

GROUP STAFF AT AMADOR COUNTY

DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The pro se plaintiff has recently filed his opposition to defendants’ March 16,

2006 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s opposition includes a notice of opposition, a

memorandum of points and authorities, and 106 pages of evidence attached to a cover page in

which plaintiff states that the exhibits comprise his evidence in opposition to defendants’ motion.

Local Rule 56-260 requires that

[a]ny party opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary

adjudication shall reproduce the itemized facts in the Statement of

Undisputed Facts and admit those facts that are undisputed and

deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a citation

to the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition,

interrogatory answer, admission or other document relied upon in

support of that denial.

Local Rule 56-260(b). The opposing party “may also file a concise ‘Statement of Disputed

Case 2:05-cv-01260-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Facts,’ and the source thereof in the record, of all additional material facts as to which there is a

genuine issue precluding summary judgment or adjudication.” Id. 

The district court is “not required to comb the record to find some reason to deny

a motion for summary judgment,” and any evidence a party wants the court to consider for a

specific purpose should be brought to the attention of the court. Carmen v. San Francisco

Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029-31 (9th Cir. 2001). See also Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,

938 F.2d 986, 990 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] district court is under no obligation to mine the full

record for issues of triable fact.”); Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v.

Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1545 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming summary judgment where a

local rule and court admonition plainly required the opposing party to make a specific factual

showing in its opposition, without regard to whether genuine issues of fact existed somewhere in

the record).

Under Local Rule 56-260(b), a party opposing summary judgment has an

affirmative burden to identify the disputed issues of material fact and the evidence that

demonstrates the existence of a dispute. Plaintiff will be granted thirty days to file and serve

supplemental opposition in which he reproduces defendants’ statement of undisputed facts and

admits or denies each fact with citations to evidence that supports the denial of any asserted fact. 

If plaintiff cites evidence in addition to the evidence presented in his Exhibits A through L, his

additional evidence should be appended to his supplemental opposition commencing with

Exhibit M.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file and serve supplemental opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment as described in this order; and

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01260-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s supplemental opposition shall be filed and

served within fifteen days after plaintiff serves the supplemental opposition.

DATED: April 10, 2006.

DAD:13

know1260.msjopp

Case 2:05-cv-01260-FCD-DAD Document 62 Filed 04/10/06 Page 3 of 3