Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02222-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 EAS TERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELONZA JESSE TYLER,              No. 2:08CV‐02222 ODW

Plaintiff,

vs.

MIKE E. KNOWLES, et al.

Defendants.             ORDER

_____________________________/

On December 27, 2010 Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Notice of Motion

and Motion Requesting Permission for Ex Parte To Move for Summary

Adjudication.”  The court disregards the request for an ex parte filing because

there is no provision in Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 for the filing of a motion

for summary judgment or summary adjudication on an ex parte basis.  Indeed,

Rule 56(c) requires that the “motion must be served at least 10 days before the

day set for the hearing.” Indeed, the proof of service appended to the Motion

reflects service on the Office of the Attorney General.                                  

Case 2:08-cv-02222-ODW Document 37 Filed 01/04/11 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

Substantively, plaintiff has utterly failed to demonstrate that he is entitled

to judgment in his favor.  While the document itself is 82 pages, it is completely

devoid of evidentiary support which would entitle plaintiff to judgment as a

matter of law.

There is no memorandum of points and authorities nor a listing of

undisputed material facts and supporting evidence.  While Rule 56 does not

expressly require it, there is no supporting affidavit nor answers to interrogatories

or other discovery.  The motion merely states “Plaintiff will demonstrate for the

court, material facts that establish prima facie evidence of the facts in the

complaint, which he believes would best be decided in a Rule 56 summary

adjudication proceeding.”  This is followed by 80 pages of various documents

which on the current state of the record, would not be admissible evidence.  In

sum, plaintiff seeks summary adjudication ‐ on an unspecified issue, on the basis

of no admissible evidence.

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.

DATED: December 29, 2010

______________________________

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02222-ODW Document 37 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 2