Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06106-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 Identified as Rison in the amended complaint. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BERNARD BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06106-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER STRIKING MOTION FROM RECORD

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL

RULE

(Doc. 117)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS THIRTY

DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A

DISPOSITIVE MOTION, AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS THEREAFTER

TO FILE A RESPONSE

Plaintiff Steven Bernard Brooks (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on April 22, 2004,

against defendants Andrews, Johnson, and Rinson (“defendants”) for violation of the Equal 1

Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 115.) On April 12, 2006, defendants filed a

motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56. (Doc. 117.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 28, 2006, and

defendants filed a reply on May 10, 2006. (Docs. 118-122.)

/// 

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 124 Filed 08/23/06 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

Defendants’ motion is not in compliance with Local Rule 56-260(a), which requires that the

moving party file “all evidentiary documents cited in the moving papers.” It is not the duty of the

Court to wade through the record in this case and compile all of the evidence previously submitted

by defendants and cited to by defendants in their current motion. Rather, defendants are required

to submit with their motion the evidence relied upon. Defendants’ motion shall be stricken from the

record and defendants shall be granted thirty days within which to file a dispositive motion.

If defendants file a new dispositive motion, plaintiff may file a new response to the motion

if he wishes to do so after reviewing defendants’ motion. The Court will not consider multiple

oppositions. Therefore, if plaintiff files a new response, it must be complete within itself without

reference to previously filed opposition(s).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, filed April 12, 2006, is

STRICKEN from the record for failure to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a);

2. Defendants have thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which

to file a dispositive motion;

3. If plaintiff wishes to file a new response, he may do so within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of defendants’ motion; and

4. If plaintiff files a new response, it must be complete within itself without reference

to plaintiff’s previous opposition(s).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06106-LJO -SMS Document 124 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2