Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02971/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02971-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:13-cv-2971-BTM-RBB

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL M. SOARES,

CDCR #F-39579,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:13-cv-2971-BTM-RBB

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO 

RECALL PLAINTIFF’S PREVIOUS 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[ECF No. 88]

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

(ECF No. 84), set for hearing without oral argument pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 

7.1(d)(1) on Friday, November 4, 2016. 

On September 13, 2016, the Court provided Plaintiff, a prisoner at the California 

Health Care Facility in Stockton, California, with notice of the requirements for opposing 

summary judgment pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 409 (9th Cir. 1988) and Rand 

v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (ECF No. 85). Plaintiff’s opposition 

is due October 21, 2016; Defendants’ Reply is due October 28, 2016. (Id. at 2.)

On September 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to Recall” his own previously 

filed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 88). In this Notice, Plaintiff asks the 

Court to “recall” the Motion for Summary Judgment he first filed on March 15, 2016 

(ECF No. 55), but before the close of discovery. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s

Case 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB Document 89 Filed 10/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:13-cv-2971-BTM-RBB

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

Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice as premature on May 25, 2016, when it 

granted Plaintiff’s subsequently filed Motion for leave to amend and/or join additional 

parties his pleadings (ECF No. 61).

1

Instead of filing a new Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff now asks the 

Court to decide his previously-filed Motion on the merits as it was originally submitted

before the September 12, 2016 cut-off date, and to take it under submission together with 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 88).

Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 88) to 

renew his previously filed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55). 

The Court will consider Plaintiff’s Motion together with Defendants’ Motion (ECF 

No. 84), currently set for hearing as submitted and without oral argument on November 

4, 2016. Defendants may file an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 55) on or 

before Friday, October 21, 2016.

2 Plaintiff may file a Reply to Defendants’ Opposition 

on or before October 28, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2016

 

1 Plaintiff later attempted to withdraw his Motion to Join/Amend, indicating that he instead 

intended to stand on his original pleadings (ECF No. 67). Because the Court had already 

granted the Motion Plaintiff sought to withdraw, it denied his motion to withdraw as moot, 

and affirmed that the dates and deadlines set out in Judge Brooks’ October 9, 2015 

Scheduling Order would remain in effect (ECF No. 68). Pursuant to that Order, “[a]ll other 

pretrial motions [were to] be filed by September 12, 2016.” (ECF No. 43 at 3 ¶ 8.)

2 Plaintiff is reminded that he must also file his own Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 84) on or before October 21, 2016, as set forth in the 

Court’s Klingele / Rand Order (ECF No. 85).

Case 3:13-cv-02971-BTM-RBB Document 89 Filed 10/04/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2