Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01101/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01101-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAYA REED,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER PRADO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1101 KJM CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a county inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 4, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition to the 

pending motion for summary judgment within thirty days and warned that this was her final 

extension of time. (ECF No. 26 at 3.) On December 9, 2024, plaintiff filed a document styled, 

“Order to Show Cause.” (ECF No. 27.) However, plaintiff did not sign the filing, referred to 

hereafter as “unsigned filing.”1

 (Id.) Parties proceeding without counsel are required to sign all 

pleadings, motions, and other papers submitted to the court for filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The 

Court is unable to consider plaintiff’s unsigned filing unless she signs and re-files it. Id. Failure 

to comply with this order will result in an order striking the unsigned filing (ECF No. 27).

1

 Plaintiff also failed to date the unsigned filing. (ECF No. 27.) Thus, the Court is unable to tell 

whether plaintiff had received the Court’s December 4, 2024 order before mailing the unsigned 

filing. Thus, it is unclear whether plaintiff’s unsigned filing was an untimely response to the 

Court’s October 18, 2024 order to show cause (ECF No. 24), or whether plaintiff intended the 

filing to be her opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

Case 2:23-cv-01101-KJM-CSK Document 29 Filed 12/20/24 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

Therefore, plaintiff is provided an opportunity to re-file the unsigned filing with a 

document bearing her signature. Id. However, plaintiff must clearly identify the nature of the 

document. In other words, plaintiff must title the document in a way that describes what plaintiff 

is filing. For example, if the unsigned filing was intended to be plaintiff’s opposition to the 

pending motion for summary judgment, plaintiff shall entitle the re-filing as “Plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment.” Using appropriate titles clearly identifies the 

filing for the benefit of the Court and the defendants. Plaintiff’s opposition must also bear 

plaintiff’s signature and should include the date plaintiff signed it and presented it to jail officials 

for mailing. Plaintiff is cautioned that unless plaintiff re-files the unsigned filing with a document 

bearing her signature, the Court cannot consider the unsigned filing, including the documents 

provided with it, in addressing the pending motion for summary judgment.

Pursuant to the December 4, 2024 order, plaintiff’s opposition to the pending motion for 

summary judgment is due on or before January 3, 2025. Thus, plaintiff is granted until January 3, 

2025, in which to sign and file the unsigned filing. As noted above, plaintiff is cautioned that 

failure to re-file the unsigned filing will result in an order striking the unsigned filing (ECF No. 

27). Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may re-file a signed version of the unsigned filing (ECF No. 27) on or before 

January 3, 2025. Such re-filing shall include (a) plaintiff’s signature, (b) the date she 

signed it and handed it to jail staff for mailing, and (c) an appropriate title that 

describes the filing.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of her unsigned filing (ECF 

No. 27).

Dated: December 19, 2024

/1/reed1101.r11

Case 2:23-cv-01101-KJM-CSK Document 29 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2