Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01474/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01474-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS RUBEN ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAL TERHUNE,

Defendant.

NO. CIV S-99-1474 MCE CMK P

ORDER 

On April 26, 2005, Defendants filed a request that this Court strike Plaintiff’s February

7, 2005, response to Defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s second amend complaint. Former defense

counsel has left the Office of the Attorney General, who represents Defendants in this action. 

Defendants’ newly assigned counsel, in reviewing the file, discovered that Plaintiff’s February 7,

2005, filing, included a “response to defendants’ answer” and a “cross” motion for summary

judgment. There is no existing motion requiring a “cross” motion. Defendants’ opposition was

due February 28, 2005, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m). 

The court finds that, although the motion was titled “Plaintiff’s Response to

Defendants’ Answer and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment” that there was confusion created

by plaintiff by joining a response to defendants’ answer with a motion for summary judgment,

especially at this point in the proceedings. The Court further finds that the confusion created by

Plaintiff was inadvertent. Striking the response is appropriate, but may cause further confusion

with respect to Plaintiff’s intent to file a motion for summary judgment. To facilitate this Court’s

consideration of the case on motion, it finds that cross motions for summary judgment should be

filed by both parties.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:99-cv-01474-MCE -CMK Document 275 Filed 04/28/05 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

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s February 7, 2005, document is stricken in its entirety and without

prejudice. 

2. The parties are to file separate cross-motions for summary judgment on or

before July 13, 2005. Oppositions shall be filed by August 3, 2005. Replies shall be filed on

August 15, 2005.

Once the Court makes a decision with respect to the motions, it will determine whether

a further scheduling order should be filed. 

Dated: April 27, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:99-cv-01474-MCE -CMK Document 275 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2