Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05369-11/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR. et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5369 OWW LJO P 

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 75.) 

Eric Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 26, 2005, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file a separate

statement of undisputed facts to his Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. However,

no Motion for Summary Judgment had been filed by Defendants. Thus, on October 7, 2005, the

Court denied the Motion as premature. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 78 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 3
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

October 5, 2005, however. 

On October 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of time to file a Statement

of Disputed facts. Plaintiff’s request is unnecessary, however, as he may file an Opposition to

the Motion for Summary Judgment which would include a Statement of Undisputed Facts. 

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). It is the moving party’s burden to establish that there exists no genuine

issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. British

Airways Board v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 56-260(b), any party opposing a Motion for Summary Judgment

“shall reproduce the itemized facts in the Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts

that are undisputed and deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a citation to t he

particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission or other

document relied upon in support of that denial.” Local Rule 56-260(b). A moving party’s failure

to cite to the evidence relied upon in support of each specific fact makes a responding party’s

burden and the Court’s resolution of the motion unnecessarily more difficult. In fact-specific

cases, the Court is disinclined to overlook the failure to comply with the mandate of Local Rule

56-260(b). The responding party should be able to quickly ascertain what facts offered by

Plaintiff are to be contested and what evidence is relied upon in support of each fact.

Although the Court is cognizant of the fact that Plaintiff is a non-attorney proceeding pro

se and is incarcerated, all parties are required to comply with this rule, regardless of their status. 

Any Opposition not in compliance with this requirement may not be considered by the Court as

the Court will not require the opposing party to sift through the Opposition and try to figure out

for themselves the facts and the evidence relied on by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff should carefully

consider the above information in formulating his Opposition to the Motion for Summary

Judgment to ensure compliance with the rules. With that said, Plaintiff will be granted

additional time to submit an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 78 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1. Plaintiff’s Request for an Extension of time is GRANTED. The Opposition to the

Motion for Summary Judgment is DUE within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of

service of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05369-OWW -LJO Document 78 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 3