Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01705/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01705-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEREMY JAMISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMBRAJYA PALAGUMMI, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-01705 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of 

the undersigned for all future proceedings. See ECF Nos. 6, 21. Currently pending before the 

court are three separate, but duplicative, motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 26, 31, 33. 

Defendant Palagummi has opposed the first motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it 

is procedurally deficient as well as premature in light of the court’s discovery and scheduling 

order which was just issued on February 14, 2014. ECF No. 32. 

 The court notes that all three summary judgment motions fail to comply with Rule 56(c) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 260, in that they contain no statement of 

undisputed facts. The only proffered basis for the motions is plaintiff’s misunderstanding of the 

defendant’s answer to his complaint. ECF No. 26 at 1 (noting that defendant stated that “she has 

no information or belief upon the subjects contained therein sufficient to enable him to 

Case 2:13-cv-01705-AC Document 34 Filed 03/11/14 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

answer....”). The language to which plaintiff points does not support judgment in plaintiff’s 

favor, it merely reflects the fact that certain facts remain to be discovered at this stage of the acse. 

Pursuant to the recently issued discovery and scheduling order, ECF No. 28, discovery shall 

commence and be conducted until June 6, 2014. Id. at 5. All dispositive motions are currently 

scheduled to be filed by August 29, 2014. Plaintiff is once again advised that following the 

completion of discovery, the parties have almost three months to draft and file any dispositive 

motions, including a summary judgment motion if appropriate. The currently pending motions 

for summary judgment are premature because the discovery period has not closed. 

 Plaintiff is advised that this court’s docket is burdened with the heaviest caseload in the 

country. Due to the volume of cases as well as the number of pending motions in each case, the 

court is unable to adjudicate every pending motion immediately upon the close of briefing. As a 

result and in light of plaintiff’s filing of repetitious and meritless motions, he is cautioned that 

repeated future filings of such seriatim motions will subject him to sanctions as an abuse of court 

process. 

 For all of these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment 

(ECF Nos. 26, 31, 33) are stricken from the court’s docket as premature and procedurally 

deficient. This order is without prejudice to the filing of a summary judgment that complies with 

the applicable rules and is filed after the close of discovery. 

DATED: March 10, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01705-AC Document 34 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 2