Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00430/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00430-8/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

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

Plaintiff Juan Montenegro is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action proceeds against Defendants David Moore and M. Garcia for excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed January 21, 2020.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is premature, as discovery just began on December 4, 

2019, Defendants have not been given the opportunity to discover any facts or information necessary 

in drafting an opposition. In addition, Plaintiff’s motion did not comply with Local Rule 260(a), 

which requires that “[e]ach motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be 

accompanied by a ‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific 

material relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, 

JUAN MONTENEGRO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID MOORE, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00430-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDMENT BE DENIED, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 32]

Case 1:19-cv-00430-DAD-SAB Document 33 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1 of 2
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

deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied upon to establish that fact.” 

Compliance with Local Rule 260(a) is mandatory, and as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to include a 

Statement of Undisputed Facts with his motion, it is procedurally defective and should be denied, 

without prejudice, on that ground. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment be DENIED, without prejudice.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00430-DAD-SAB Document 33 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 2