Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00711/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00711-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Prentice Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-711-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion for a hearing on the admissibility of

plaintiff’s testimony (doc. 72). This is an action for alleged constitutional violations,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. We have previously granted defendants’

motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (doc.

74), and entered judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff (doc. 75). 

Plaintiff now contends that defendants submitted an inaccurate copy of his deposition

testimony in support of their motion for summary judgment (doc. 56-1). First, any objections

to evidence offered in support of a motion for summary judgment should be raised in the

opposing party’s response to the summary judgment motion. See LRCiv. 7.2(m)(2).

Plaintiff’s citation to Rule 32(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. is irrelevant; that rule pertains to the use of

deposition testimony in a hearing or trial. This motion is therefore improper under our local

rules.

Case 2:09-cv-00711-FJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/10 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 -

Second, even if we were to take as true the assertions plaintiff makes in the revised

testimony, they would not impact our grant of summary judgment. Plaintiff maintains that

defendant Officer Stipp worked for the Tempe Police Department at the time of plaintiff’s

arrest. Plaintiff also claims that contrary to defendant Stipp’s deposition, defendant Stipp had

been surveying him on the Arizona State University campus. Even if this is all true, this has

no bearing on plaintiff’s claims arising from his arrest, for which defendants had probable

cause. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion for a hearing on

admissibility of plaintiff’s testimony (doc. 72). 

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00711-FJM Document 76 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2