Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01795/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01795-3/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH LEE GLOSSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. ELLIOTT, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1795 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion “for leave . . . to file a disposition motion.” ECF No. 

37. In his motion, plaintiff states that he believes a motion “may resolve the case given the fact 

that defendant admits her [acts] and omissions in failing to perform her duties in this action.” Id. 

 Based on his request, it appears plaintiff may be seeking leave to file an untimely motion 

for summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that the deadline for filing a motion for summary 

judgment in this case expired on June 26, 2016. See ECF No. 16. Accordingly, it is too late for 

plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff has not explained why he 

was unable to file a motion for summary judgment before the June 26, 2016 deadline. To the 

extent plaintiff’s request is based on additional research plaintiff recently conducted, see ECF No. 

37 at 1, plaintiff’s recent research does not constitute good cause to extend the dispositive motion 

deadline. 

Case 2:14-cv-01795-JAM-AC Document 38 Filed 10/05/16 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 

27 

28 

2

Moreover, even if plaintiff were permitted to file an untimely motion for summary 

judgment, it is extremely unlikely that plaintiff’s motion would resolve this case. Plaintiff is 

reminded that on September 9, 2016, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendant Elliott’s motion for summary judgment be denied.1 ECF No. 35. 

In the findings and recommendations, the court determined that summary judgment was 

unwarranted because a material factual dispute existed regarding whether defendant Elliott’s 

response to plaintiff’s requests for immediate medical care constituted deliberate indifference to 

plaintiff’s serious mental health needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 15. Because 

it appears that plaintiff would rely on the same evidence the court already considered in 

connection with defendant Elliott’s motion for summary judgment, there is no reason to believe 

that plaintiff’s summary judgment motion would lead to a different result. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a 

dispositive motion, ECF No. 37, is denied. 

DATED: October 4, 2016 

 

 

 

1

 These findings and recommendations are still pending before the district judge. 

Case 2:14-cv-01795-JAM-AC Document 38 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 2