Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02621/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02621-5/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

1Plaintiff need not serve his pretrial statement at this time, as, by separate order, the court

has vacated the pretrial conference and jury trial dates, pending adjudication of the two motions

for summary judgment pending in this matter.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLEO WESTERFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2621 MCE GGH P

vs.

DR. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a pretrial statement1 and objections to

defendants’ September 23, 2005 motion for summary judgment with supporting documents. 

Those documents were not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document

submitted to the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. 

Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. 

If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendants, then documents

submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendants. Every

document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must

Case 2:02-cv-02621-MCE -GGH Document 105 Filed 10/12/05 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

include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants

or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Plaintiff has previously been cautioned with regard to his failure to demonstrate

proper proof of service. In an order, filed on August 4, 2005, plaintiff was given fifteen days to

serve upon defendants his July 26, 2005 “separate statements of undisputed material facts....,”

and to file proper proof of said service. Plaintiff failed to file proof of service thereof and the

time for doing so has expired. Plaintiff was cautioned in the court’s August 4, 2005 order that

failure to provide the requisite proof of service to the court would result in the unserved

document being disregarded by the court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to note in the case file that docket entry # 88,

plaintiff’s “separate statements of undisputed material facts....,” is stricken from the record; and 

2. Within fifteen days from the date of this order plaintiff shall serve a copy of

plaintiff’s October 5, 2005 objections/opposition to defendants’ September 23, 2005 motion for

summary judgment with supporting documents [#100-102] on counsel for defendants and shall

file proper proof of said service. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order

could result in his opposition to defendants’ September 23, 2005 motion for summary judgment,

filed on the October 5, 2005, being wholly disregarded and may result in the imposition of

additional sanctions. Plaintiff’s failure to serve any documents subsequently filed in this action

properly, and failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 10/12/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

west2621.35(2)

Case 2:02-cv-02621-MCE -GGH Document 105 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2