Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-33/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

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HEDGEPATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANT LOPEZ'S DECLARATION

AND EXHIBITS

(Doc. 165.)

Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a motion to strike the declaration and attached exhibits filed by defendant Lopez on

February 22, 2011. (Doc. 165.) 

Plaintiff objects to defendant Lopez’s declaration on the grounds that defendant Lopez

failed to provide documentary evidence in support of her statements that she is a Board Certified

physician in internal medicine, holds a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, holds a Doctor of

Chiropractic degree, and is licensed as an X-ray Supervisor and an Aviation Medical Examiner. 

Plaintiff argues that the entire declaration and attached exhibits should be stricken because

defendant Lopez did not produce copies of her degrees when Plaintiff requested copies during

discovery. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants should not be allowed professional, technical,

and legal advantages over Plaintiff when they violate court rules.

1

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 181 Filed 05/06/11 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

Defendant Lopez’s declaration was filed in this action on February 22, 2011, in support of

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on the same date. (Doc. 147-4.) Plaintiff’s

objections to testimony contained in the declaration are properly brought as part of Plaintiff’s

opposition to the motion for summary judgment, instead of as a separate motion to strike. 

Therefore, the motion to strike shall be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant

Lopez’s declaration and attached exhibits is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 181 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 2