Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00865-11/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

RICHARD GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00865-NONE-JLT (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENT TO HIS OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. 

P. 56(e)

(Docs. 57, 58)

21-DAY DEADLINE

On February 6, 2020, Defendants Crisanto and Mello filed a motion for summary 

judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit. (Doc. 57.) On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Exhaustion Motion.” 

(Doc. 58.) Upon review, the document appears to be intended to serve as an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Notably, along with the motion for summary judgment, the defendants provided a Rand1

notice. This notice detailed the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. The 

notice warned, “

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is 

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply 

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in 

 

1 Rand v Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988).

Case 1:17-cv-00865-JLT-CDB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 3
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

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, 

as provided in Rule 56(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's 

declarations and documents and that show there to be a genuine issue of material 

fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition to Defendants’ 

motion, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If 

summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no 

trial.

(Doc. 57-1 at 2)

In his opposition, Plaintiff fails to comply with the standards described in the Rand notice. 

As noted in the Rand notice, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires that a “party asserting 

that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by ... citing to particular 

parts of materials in the record, including ... documents, ... affidavits or declarations.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Plaintiff also failed to file a separate document admitting to or denying the 

facts in Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, as required by Local Rule 260(b). The Court 

further notes that Plaintiff’s opposition is neither signed under penalty of perjury nor 

accompanied by a sworn declaration. (See Doc. 58.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) provides also, “[i]f a party fails to properly support 

an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by 

Rule 56(c), the court may ... give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact.” Thus, 

the Court grants Plaintiff one opportunity to submit evidence to properly support the facts 

asserted in his opposition.

Plaintiff is warned that any submission should comply with the applicable requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Plaintiff must set forth specific facts—for example, in

sworn declarations, depositions, or authenticated documents—that contradict the facts in 

Defendants’ declaration(s) and show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact.

Further, Plaintiff must comply with Local Rule 260(b), which requires him to “reproduce 

the itemized facts in the Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts that are undisputed 

and deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a citation to the particular portions of 

any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied 

upon in support of that denial.” Plaintiff “may also file a concise ‘Statement of Disputed Facts,’

and the source thereof in the record, of all additional material facts as to which there is a genuine 

Case 1:17-cv-00865-JLT-CDB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

issue precluding summary judgment.” Id. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to 

his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which complies with the 

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and Local Rule 230(b);

2. Within 7 days of the filing of Plaintiff’s supplement, Defendants Crisanto and Mello 

shall file a reply, if any, to Plaintiff’s opposition, including his supplement;

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action or in 

summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00865-JLT-CDB Document 59 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 3