Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01406/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01406-5/pdf.json

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

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAAC R. BROWN,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

I. LEYVA, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-1406-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 45].

An opposition has been filed. No reply has been filed.

Motion for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff requests that, due to the defense’s attempts to stall, thwart, and undermine

this matter, summary judgment be awarded in his favor in the amount of $3,700. Defendants

assert that the motion is not in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and L.R. 260. A motion for

summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure

materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). The

local rule provides:

Each motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be accompanied

by a "Statement of Undisputed Facts" that shall enumerate discretely each of the

specific material facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular

portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or

other document relied upon to establish that fact. The moving party shall be

responsible for the filing of all evidentiary documents cited in the moving papers. 

Case 1:07-cv-01406-CKJ Document 49 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

See L.R. 133(j).

L.R. 260.

A party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden to demonstrate, "with

or without supporting affidavits[,]" the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that

judgment as a matter of law should be granted in the moving party's favor. Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986), quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. A

material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict

for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct.

2505, 2510 (1986). The facts material in a specific case are to be determined by the

substantive law controlling a given case or issue. Id. Summary judgment is not appropriate

"where contradictory inferences may reasonably be drawn from undisputed evidentiary

facts[.]" Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal Co. v. Turley, 622 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1980).

A motion for summary judgment should be denied “where the movant’s papers are

insufficient to support that motion or on their face reveal a genuine issue of material fact.”

See Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 f.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing when no response

is filed). 

Plaintiff’s motion does not address whether there is a genuine issue as to any material

fact and whether Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court finds Plaintiff

has not sustained his burden; i.e., Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine

issue of material fact or that judgment as a matter of law should be granted. The Court finds

it appropriate to deny the motion.

Joint Proposed Pretrial Order 

Additionally, the Court confirms its December 15, 2009, Order which provided that

a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is to be filed within 30 days after resolution of dispositive

motions. The Court refers the parties to its May 26, 2009, Order for the form of the Joint

Proposed Pretrial Order.

Case 1:07-cv-01406-CKJ Document 49 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 45] is DENIED.

2. A Joint Proposed Pretrial Order shall be filed within 30 days of this Order.

DATED this 13th day of April, 2010.

Case 1:07-cv-01406-CKJ Document 49 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 3