Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313-14/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

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03-6313 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION AND MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 66.) 

Willie D. Randle is (“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 January 26, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff moved

to strike the Motion for Summary Judgment on February 16, 2007, and also granted Plaintiff an

extension of time to file an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

On February 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion/request for Clarification of

Rules and Order of Extension of time.” Plaintiff states he is seeking an extension of time in case

he misunderstands the Court’s Order regarding the dispositive motion deadline. 

The Court generally does not provide clarification of its orders. The dispositive motion

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 02/26/07 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

Local Rule 56-260(c) provides: “Any party opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary 1

adjudication shall 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. The opposing party 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 issue precluding summary judgment or

adjudication. The opposing party shall be responsible for the filing with the Clerk of all evidentiary documents cited

in the opposing papers.” 

2

deadline is just that, a deadline to file a dispositive motion. Defendants have filed their Motion

for Summary Judgment, which is dispositive, before the expiration of the deadline set forth in the

Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Under the local rules, Plaintiff is required to file either

an Opposition to that Motion (Local Rule Local Rule 56-260(c)), or a Statement of Non- 1

Opposition and has also been granted one extension fo time to file such document. There is

nothing further to clarify and Plaintiff’s request for another extension so that he can “understand”

the Court’s Order is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Clarification filed by Plaintiff on February 15, 2007, is

DISREGARDED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 68 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2