Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00836-15/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

SAAHDI COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO FILE OPPOSITION NUNC PRO TUNC

(Doc. 83)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Saahdi Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment. Doc. 70. March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary

judgment. Doc. 75; Doc. 76; Doc. 77; Doc. 79. On Mar 26, 2012, Defendants filed a reply. Doc.

82. On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to consider his opposition as filed timely. Doc. 83. 

On April 16, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition. Doc. 85. On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

reply. Doc. 86. 

On July 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit found that the notice and warning of requirements for

opposing a defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be issued contemporaneously when

a defendant files a motion for summary judgment, as opposed to a year or more in advance. Woods

v. Carey, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 2626912, at * 4 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012). In order to address the time

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-SAB Document 89 Filed 08/22/12 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

delay between providing notice and the filing of Defendants’ motion, On August 8, 2012, the Court

issued an amended second informational order and provided Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a new

opposition. Doc. 87; Doc. 88.

Given that Plaintiff is being provided an additional chance to submit a timely opposition, the

Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion filed on April 12, 2013, and considers Plaintiff’s original

opposition filed on March 9, 2012, to be timely, should Plaintiff desire to stand on this opposition

rather than file a new opposition.

II. Conclusion and Order

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s motion filed on April 12, 2012,

to consider Plaintiff’s opposition as timely filed, is GRANTED. Doc. 83.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 21, 2012 

0jh02o UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-SAB Document 89 Filed 08/22/12 Page 2 of 2