Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05437/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05437-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-5437 OWW SMS P 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE

SUPPLEMENT (Doc. 43.) 

Michael L. Hughes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 17, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed

an Opposition to the Motion on February 20, 2007. 

On March 15, 2007, Plaintiff moved for permission to file a supplemental attachment to

his Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff states that when he submitted his

Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, he neglected to use the word “verify” in his

statement of authenticity. Plaintiff wishes to submit a supplement to include that language. 

Plaintiff’s request will be GRANTED. However, instead of submitting a supplement, the

Court will DIRECT Plaintiff to submit a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury

authenticating the various exhibits and attachments cited by Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall submit this

pleading and title it “Declaration in support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment.” 

Case 1:04-cv-05437-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 04/18/07 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

This will ensure that the Court will examine this document when reviewing the Motion for

Summary Judgment. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED; 

2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL

submit a Declaration in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order may result in the Court’s resolution of the

Motion for Summary Judgment without consideration of the declaration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05437-OWW -SMS Document 44 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2