Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01450-14/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 

CHARLES PLUNKETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. PARHAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 On October 19, 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment that was 

procedurally defective because it was not accompanied by the required Rand Notice. ECF No. 

46. Without having received the notice, which outlines the requirements for opposing a motion 

for summary judgment, plaintiff filed an opposition that fails to comply with Federal Rule 

56(c)(1)(A) and Local Rule 260(b).1

 ECF No. 52. Defendants’ motion was denied without 

prejudice after the procedural defect was discovered and they were given an opportunity to reserve and re-file their motion. ECF No. 56. Defendants refiled their motion for summary 

//// 

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1)(A) requires that “[a] party asserting that a fact . . . is 

genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the 

record.” Local Rule 260(b) provides that plaintiff must file a separate document in response to 

defendants’ statement of undisputed facts that identifies which facts are admitted and which are 

disputed. 

Case 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC Document 58 Filed 07/28/23 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 

judgement, this time accompanied by the required Rand Notice, on June 19, 2023.2 ECF No. 57. 

However, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the re-filed motion. Plaintiff will be given 

another opportunity to file an opposition to defendants’ re-filed motion for summary judgment. 

In the event she does not file an opposition, the court will rely on plaintiff’s opposition to the 

originally filed motion despite its procedural defects unless plaintiff notifies the court that she no 

longer wishes to oppose the motion. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days after the 

filing date of this order, plaintiff may file and serve an opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment or a statement of non-opposition. 

DATED: July 28, 2023 

2

 Despite the court’s explicit reminder to defendants that in the event they chose to re-file their 

motion for summary judgment “they should ensure that they attach the properly signed version of 

their declarations” (ECF No. 56 (citing ECF No. 47)), they have once again submitted 

declarations for Parham and Andrade that are not properly signed in compliance with Local Rule 

131(f) (ECF No. 57-2 at 4; ECF No. 57-3 at 4). Since properly signed copies have been filed on 

the record (ECF No. 48), the court will not require defendants to re-file them. However, 

continued failure to comply with this court’s orders and the applicable rules may result in 

sanctions. 

Case 2:19-cv-01450-DC-AC Document 58 Filed 07/28/23 Page 2 of 2