Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-25/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-OWW-LJO P

ORDER STRIKING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(Doc. 96)

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant Earlene Smith (“defendant”)

for discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on July 31, 2006. On August

3, 2006, Magistrate Judge O’Neill issued an order requiring defendant to show cause within twenty

days why her motion for summary judgment should not be stricken from the record on the ground

that it was so procedurally deficient that it was frivolous. 

Defendant filed a response to the order on August 23, 2006, and on August 24, 2006, Judge

O’Neill issued a Findings and Recommendations finding that defendant did not show good cause

why her motion for summary judgment should not be stricken from the record, recommending that

the motion be stricken, and recommending that defendant be granted a thirty-day extension of time

to file a dispositive motion. On October 16, 2006, the Court adopted the Findings and

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 97 Filed 11/16/06 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

2

Recommendations in full, and granted defendant thirty days in which to file a dispositive motion.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on November 13, 2006. 

Judge O’Neill’s August 3 order to show cause stated in relevant part:

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claim that defendant violated his rights under

the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against him. The Court has issued

orders specifically identifying the basis of this action, see e.g. Court Doc. 19, and the

second amended complaint pleads no other constitutional claim. Despite this,

defendant’s motion is almost entirely devoid of any mention of plaintiff’s equal

protection claim. Instead, defendant argues that plaintiff does not have a protected

liberty interest in his prison job and that plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim

of deliberate indifference. (Motion, 7:1-8:3 & 9:21-10:20.) The Court is confounded

by defendant’s decision to argue that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

on Fifth Amendment due process and Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement

claims, which are not at issue in this action, while failing to include any section

setting forth law or specific argument on equal protection, which is at issue in this

action. (Motion, 5:14-10:20.) 

(Doc. 73, 2:14-24.) 

The Court has reviewed the renewed motion for summary judgment and it contains, verbatim,

the same sections arguing that plaintiff does not have a protected liberty interest in his job and that

the denial of his prison job does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. (Doc. 71-1,

7:1-8:8 & 9:21-10:20; Doc. 96, 11:1-13:17.) These sections shall be stricken from the record and

shall not be addressed by plaintiff in his response.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the following sections of defendant’s motion for summary

judgment, filed on November 13, 2006, are STRICKEN and shall not be addressed by plaintiff: page

11, line 1 through page 12, line 8, and page 12, line 18 through page 13, line 17.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 97 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2