Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01046-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

VERNON KITTLES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

H. Lapin, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-1046 OWW DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[DOC #15]

Plaintiff Vernon Kittles is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil action seeking relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. On December 5, 2005, the

Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended

complaint. On December 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue

as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

[A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on

file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), motions in

prisoner cases are deemed submitted twenty-eight (28) days after service of the motion or when a

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 19 Filed 09/06/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

reply is filed, whichever is later. If the required notice of a motion for summary judgment has not

been given, the Court generally lacks authority to grant the motion. See Reese v. Sparks, 760 F.2d

64, 66 (3d. Cir. 1985). Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. Should it appear from the affidavits of a party

opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts

essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for

judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or

depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. 

Plaintiff has filed his motion for summary judgment prior to service of the complaint on

defendants and did not serve defendants with his motion. Indeed, plaintiff does not yet have a

complaint on file which states a cognizable claim for relief against the defendants.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment be DENIED, without prejudice to refiling at a later date.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 5, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 19 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 2