Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00425/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00425-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E. K. WADE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WOODY GILLILAND, in his individual

capacity; WILLIAM SMITHERMAN, in

his individual capacity, GEORGIA

MARTIN, in her individual capacity,

ALICE YOUNG, in her individual

capacity; SARAH NELSON, in her

individual capacity, KATHYANN

BATISTE, in her individual capacity, and

BERLENE ROBERTS, in her individual

capacity;

Defendants. /

No. C 10-00425 WHA

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO FILE AN

OPPOSITION BRIEF

The undersigned judge has received pro se plaintiff E. K. Wade’s request for permission

to file an opposition brief to defendants’ re-noticed motion to dismiss, currently scheduled for

oral argument on Thursday, June 24 (Dkt. No. 83). The motion to dismiss was re-noticed by

defendants due to reassignment of this case from Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte on May 17.

In his request, plaintiff Wade argued that he “should not have to re-submit ALL of the

same voluminous information that he has already submitted to Magistrate Judge LaPorte.” This

order agrees. Plaintiff should not re-submit any information he has already filed with Judge

Laporte. All of the briefs submitted to Judge Laporte by plaintiff have already been reviewed by

the undersigned judge and shall be properly considered when ruling on the re-noticed motion to

Case 3:10-cv-00425-WHA Document 84 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

dismiss. This includes the five opposition briefs plaintiff filed in response to defendant’s motion

to dismiss both before and after it was re-noticed. These five opposition briefs will be treated as

timely responses to the re-noticed motion. Plaintiff need not and should not re-file them.

Similarly, any and all of plaintiff Wade’s responses to the pending motion to declare

plaintiff vexatious and for a limited pre-filing screening order will be treated as timely responses

to that motion. This includes the document filed by plaintiff in April affirming the motion for

administrative relief to declare plaintiff vexatious and for a limited pre-filing screening order.

Finally, plaintiff Wade is reminded that the hearing on both of these re-noticed motions

will be held on Thursday, June 24. Plaintiff’s attendance at this hearing is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00425-WHA Document 84 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2