Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00689-11/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN-PIERRE K. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BONILLA,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-00689-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

OVERSIZED BRIEF (DOC. 49)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(DOC. 47)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN

FOURTEEN DAYS

Findings And Recommendations

I. Background

Plaintiff Jean-Pierre K. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants

Bonilla and Garcia for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed November 4, 2010, against Defendant Bonilla. 

On January 14, 2011, Defendant Bonilla filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, contending,

inter alia, that Plaintiff’s motion failed to comply with Local Rule 260(a), which requires a

statement of undisputed facts with proper support. On May 17, 2011, the Court agreed with

Defendant Bonilla and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of facts. On June 24,

1

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 86 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 4
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

2011, Plaintiff filed his amended statement of undisputed facts. On July 25, 2011, Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for his failure to comply with

Local Rule 260(a). Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion on August 16, 2011. 

Defendants filed their reply on August 25, 2011. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule

230(l).

II. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 And Local Rule 260(a)

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party asserting that a

fact cannot be . . . genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts

of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information,

affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other

materials.” “If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact . . . as required by Rule 56(c),

the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact . . . or (4) issue any

other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Local Rule 260(a) specifically requires that a motion for summary judgment

shall be accompanied by a “Statement of Undisputed Facts” that shall enumerate

discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon in support of the motion

and cite the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory

answer, admission, or other document relied upon to establish that fact. The

moving party shall be responsible for the filing of all evidentiary documents cited

in the moving papers.

Plaintiff’s first statement of facts was deficient in that it failed to cite to any documents

relied upon to establish the fact. The Court provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to properly

support an assertion of fact accompanying his motion for summary judgment. Defendants

contend that Plaintiff’s amended statement of facts continues to not comply with the Local Rules. 

Defs.’ Mot. 1-3, Doc. 77. Plaintiff contends that he complied with the Local Rule as he possibly

could, as Plaintiff is a layperson regarding the law. Pl.’s Opp’n 8, Doc. 80.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s amended statement of facts. Doc. 73. Plaintiff’s

statement of facts are long paragraphs that contain numerous other facts, many of which may not

be material to this action. Plaintiff does not list his facts in a chronological order, rendering the

statement of undisputed facts more difficult to follow. Plaintiff cites to exhibits without any

2

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 86 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 4
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

specificity. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended statement of undisputed facts does not

comply with the requirements of Local Rule 260(a). Plaintiff has not complied with Local Rule

260(a), nor complied with Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court

recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied.

Because Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment will be denied, Plaintiff’s motion to

file an over-sized brief is disregarded.1

III. Dispositive Motion Deadline

The Court finds that in the interest of justice, Plaintiff and Defendant Bonilla should have

their dispositive motion deadline extended to March 22, 2012, coinciding with the deadline set in

the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on May 13, 2011. Thus, the denial of Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment will be without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff is reminded that he

must comply with Local Rule 260(a) when filing a motion for summary judgment.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to file an

oversized brief in support of his motion for summary judgment, filed November 4, 2010, is

DENIED.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed November 4, 2010, is DENIED

without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 260(a) and Rule 56(c) of

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

2. The dispositive motion deadline for all parties is March 22, 2012.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

 It is unclear why Plaintiff concluded that there is a page limit regarding his motion for 1

summary judgment.

3

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 86 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 4
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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 8, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:08-cv-00689-JLT Document 86 Filed 09/09/11 Page 4 of 4