Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01619/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01619-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

SURINDER SINGH BAINS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS;

JIMENEZ, Appeal Coordinator;

LAMARQUE, Warden; CADEN,

Chief Deputy Warden; VENERO,

Food Service Manager; GRANNIS,

Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch; J.

SARELI; G. ZARALA; DOE, Food

Supervisor; and SALINAS VALLEY

STATE PRISON,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-1619 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a pro se section 1983 civil rights action filed pro se by a state prisoner. 

Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

DISCUSSION

The motion for summary judgment is unopposed. A district court may not grant a

motion for summary judgment solely because the opposing party has failed to file an

opposition. Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494-95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (unopposed

motion may be granted only after court determines that there are no material issues of fact). A

court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment if the movant's papers

are themselves sufficient to support the motion and do not on their face reveal a genuine issue

Case 3:04-cv-01619-WHA Document 22 Filed 08/03/07 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

of material fact. United States v. Real Property at Incline Village, 47 F.3d 1511, 1520 (9th Cir.

1995) (local rule cannot mandate automatic entry of judgment for moving party without

consideration of whether motion and supporting papers satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 56), rev'd on

other grounds sub nom. Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996).

The papers in support of the motion for summary judgment show that plaintiff’s

religious dietary needs were considered and that the diet he was provided was sufficient to

maintain health, and on their face do not reveal a genuine issue of material fact. That is, on this

undisputed record none of the defendants was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s health. 

CONCLUSION

Because the movants’ papers are sufficient to support the motion and do not on their

face reveal a genuine issue of material fact, the motion for summary judgment (document

number 15 on the docket) is GRANTED. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.04\BAINS619.MSJ.wpd 

Case 3:04-cv-01619-WHA Document 22 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2