Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06066-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARLENE SMITH,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06066-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE

STRICKEN FROM RECORD

(Doc. 71)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF NOT TO

RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT UNLESS DIRECTED TO DO SO

BY THE COURT

Plaintiff Charles Lowell Kentz (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This action is

proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendant Earlene Smith (“defendant”)

for discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his sexual orientation, in violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. On July 31, 2006, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. 

The Court has reviewed defendant’s motion and finds it necessary to require defendant to

respond in writing to address the bases for her motion and the Court’s concerns. Unless instructed

to do so by the Court, plaintiff shall not file a response to the motion.

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue

as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 73 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 4
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

[A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on

file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made

in reliance solelyon the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’”

Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and upon

motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.

Id. at 322. “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s

case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. In such a circumstance, summary judgment

should be granted, “so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard

for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.” Id. at 323.

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claim that defendant violated his rights under the

Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against him. The Court has issued orders specifically

identifying the basis of this action, see e.g. Court Doc. 19, and the second amended complaint pleads

no other constitutional claim. Despite this, defendant’s motion is almost entirely devoid of any

mention of plaintiff’s equal protection claim. Instead, defendant argues that plaintiff does not have

a protected liberty interest in his prison job and that plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim of

deliberate indifference. (Motion, 7:1-8:3 & 9:21-10:20.) The Court is confounded by defendant’s

decision to argue that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Fifth Amendment due process

and Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims, which are not at issue in this action,

while failing to include any section setting forth law or specific argument on equal protection, which

is at issue in this action. (Motion, 5:14-10:20.) 

Further, defendant cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a screening statue applicable to cases such

as this, and asserts that the Court has discretion to dismiss this action as frivolous. (Motion, 8:18-

9:19.) The Court is not usually inclined to view such an argument with favor, as the Court screened

plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to the screening statute and made a specific finding

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 73 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

that plaintiff’s allegations stated a claim. The argument becomes even less favorable given that

defendant fails to touch upon this finding and attempt to persuade the Court why its earlier finding

was in error, and defendant fails to set forth any argument that plaintiff’s claim in this action is

frivolous. The entire subsection consists solely of a citation to and discussion of a Fourth Circuit

case affirming a district court’s dismissal of an action as frivolous. Defendant makes no attempt to

apply the law cited to the facts of this case. 

Finally, although defendant is purportedlymoving for summary judgment, the arguments set

forth in the motion are more suited to an attack on the pleadings brought via motion to dismiss rather

than an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the evidence submitted by defendant.

Defendant does include a Statement of Undisputed Facts, in compliance with Local Rule 56-260(a),

but she fails to argue the facts in her motion or even cite to them in her Memorandum of Law. The

Court cannot and will not comb through defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts and make her

arguments for her. The Court also notes that in the introduction to the motion, defendant cites to

Exhibit B and in the Statement of Undisputed Facts, defendant cites to Exhibits A, B, and C. These

exhibits are also referenced by defendant in her declaration. However, the only evidence before the

Court is defendant’s declaration. Exhibits A, B, and C were not submitted with the motion.

That the motion submitted by defendant is not what the Court expects to see from practioners

in federal court is an understatement. Given that the motion purports to be one for summary

judgment and that this case is proceeding solely on an equal protection claim, the motion is so off

point and lacking that the Court views it to be frivolous. Defendant shall be given the opportunity

to show cause why the motion should not be stricken from the record. If defendant declines to show

cause in response to this order or is unable to show cause, the undersigned will recommend to the

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger that the motion be stricken. In the event that the motion is stricken,

defendant will be given one final opportunity to file a dispositive motion, but is placed on notice that

if a subsequent motion is filed and found to be as deficient as the present motion, defendant will not

benefit from the leniency being demonstrated in this instance.

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 73 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant has twenty (20) days within which to show cause why her motion for

summary judgment should not be stricken from the record;

2. If defendant either fails to respond or is unable to show cause in her response, the

undersigned shall recommend that her motion for summary judgment be stricken

from the record; and

3. If the motion is stricken, the Court will issue further instructions to the parties at that

time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06066-LJO -LJO Document 73 Filed 08/03/06 Page 4 of 4