Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00481/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00481-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James E. Hunt, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Northland Trucking, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-481-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #14. The Court will deny

the motion without prejudice.

I. Background.

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendant on March 5, 2007. The complaint

alleged that Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment and that the termination

was “racially motivated.” Plaintiff sought monetary compensation and all other measures

necessary to restore his career with Defendant. Dkt. #1.

The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court

granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint because it appeared that Plaintiff would be

able to allege a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt. #4.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that purported to assert claims under Title VII

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. #5. The Court dismissed the § 1983 claim. Dkt. #13. Defendant

filed an answer to the amended complaint on July 13, 2007. Dkt. #15. 

II. Discussion.

As the party seeking summary judgment, Plaintiff bears the initial burden of

Case 2:07-cv-00481-GMS Document 16 Filed 07/20/07 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 -

“identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which [he] believes demonstrate the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323

(1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure

explicitly provides that the party seeking summary judgment shall file a separate statement

“setting forth each material fact on which the party relies in support of the motion. Each

material fact . . . shall refer to a specific admissible portion of the record where the fact finds

support[.]” LRCiv 56.1(a).

Plaintiff has not met his summary judgment burden. Plaintiff’s motion is based solely

on allegations. See Dkt. #14 at 5-13. Plaintiff has not filed a separate statement of facts or

any supporting evidence.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. See LRCiv 56.1(a) (stating

that the failure to file a separate statement of facts may constitute grounds for denying a

summary judgment motion). Plaintiff may seek summary judgment after the parties have had

sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (stating that the court

may deny a summary judgment motion “to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to

be taken or discovery to be had”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #14) is denied without

prejudice.

2. The Court will set a Case Management Conference pursuant to Rule 16 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by separate order.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00481-GMS Document 16 Filed 07/20/07 Page 2 of 2