Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066-42/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX MARTI, 

Plaintiff,

v.

F. PADILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF

OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW

OPPOSITION AND FILE AMENDED

OPPOSITION IN LIGHT OF SEPARATELYISSUED SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE

(Doc. 173.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Alex Marti is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July

9, 2007, against twenty-two Defendants, on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation under the First

Amendment. 

On July 29, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 173.) On

February 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition; on April 27, 2012, Defendants filed a reply; and the

motion was submitted under Local Rule 230(l).

However, in light of the recent decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir.

2012), Plaintiff must be provided with “fair notice” of the requirements for opposing a motion for

summary judgment at the time the motion is brought and the notice given in this case some four

years prior does not suffice.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 257 Filed 08/23/12 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

By separate order issued on July 10, 2012, the Court provided the requisite notice. (Doc.

256.) The Court shall again provide the requisite notice by separate order entitled “Amended

Second Informational Order -- Notice and Warning of Requirements for Opposing Defendants'

Summary Judgment Motion,” issued concurrently with this order. The Court will not consider

multiple oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options upon receipt of the notice and this

order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed opposition or (2) withdraw it and file an

amended opposition.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, withdraw

his opposition and file an amended opposition;

2. If Plaintiff does not file an amended opposition in response to this order, his existing

opposition will be considered in resolving Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment; and 

3. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended opposition, Defendants’ existing reply will not

be considered and they may file an amended reply pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 23, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 257 Filed 08/23/12 Page 2 of 2