Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05079-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG D. NGUON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O CLARK, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5079 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs. 38, 40.) 

Hung D. Nguon (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 17, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California. The action was transferred and received in this Court on January

14, 2004. 

On November 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting Summary Judgment. 

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 46 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on November 30, 2005. 

On November 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief. The Court notes

that Plaintiff did not provide a proof of service indicating that he served Defendants with either

of these motions as required by law. Despite service, however, Defendants responded to the

Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, the Court will not strike the pleadings from the record but

will address them in these Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff is forewarned that the Local

Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, require that all pleadings filed with the Court be

served on the opposing party. Local Rule 5-135(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. The Court will strike

pleadings from the record that are not served in compliance with these rules. 

A. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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 always 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). It is the moving party’s

burden to establish that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. British Airways Board v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 951

(9th Cir. 1978). 

Where, as here, “the moving party has the burden of proof, . . . his showing must be

sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the

moving party.” Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting from W.

Schwarzer, Summary Judgment Under the Federal Rules: Defining Issues of Material Fact 99

F.R.D. 465, 487 (1984)). Thus, on a summary judgment Motion, the moving party must

demonstrate there is no triable issue as to the matters alleged in its own pleadings. Id. This

requires the moving party to establish beyond controversy every essential element of its claim or

defense. Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). The moving party’s

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 46 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 5
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

evidence is judged by the same standard of proof applicable at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 56-260(a), “[e]ach motion for summary judgment or summary

adjudication shall be accompanied by a ‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ which 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 Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and finds that it does not comply with the

requirements set forth in Local Rule 56-260(a). Plaintiff’s Motion must be accompanied by a

Statement of Undisputed Facts in which each fact is separately set forth and is followed by a

citation to the “particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition interrogatory answer,

admission or other document relied upon to establish that fact.” Local Rule 56-260(a). A

moving party’s failure to cite to the evidence relied upon in support of each specific fact makes a

responding party’s burden unnecessarily more difficult. In fact-specific cases, the Court is

disinclined to overlook the failure to comply with the mandate of Local Rule 56-260(a). The

responding party should be able to quickly ascertain what facts offered by plaintiff are to be

contested and what evidence is relied upon in support of each fact.

Although the court is cognizant of the fact that Plaintiff is a non-attorney proceeding pro

se and is incarcerated, all parties are required to comply with this rule, regardless of their status. 

In addition, as noted by Defendants, Plaintiff’s Motion does not allege that there exists no

genuine issue of material fact warranting summary judgment, but it is also unsupported by

evidence, admissible or otherwise. 

Accordingly, based on the above, the Court will RECOMMEND that Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment, filed November 21, 2005, be DENIED. 

B. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

On November 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. 

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are well

established. To prevail, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 46 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 5
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

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to

the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune,

Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple

Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also

Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent

two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success

on the merits. Id.

Here, Plaintiff’s entire Motion consists of recitation of law. Other than his general

request for “injunctive relief,” Plaintiff does not make clear exactly the form of injunctive relief

he is asking for. Plaintiff states that the “Corpus delecti of M. Clark was to have Plaintiff

assaulted to death if it wasn’t for the help of Enrique Diaz.” (Motion at 4.) Plaintiff then

provides the Declaration of Enrique Diaz which recites the events surrounding the attack on

Plaintiff that occurred on September 13, 2001. The declaration makes no reference to an

impending threat of injury nor does it provide any other useful information that would support a

Motion for Injunctive Relief. It appears that Plaintiff believes that a declaration alone is

sufficient to warrant an injunction. Further, the submitted Motion for Preliminary Injunctive

relief fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

injury, or the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships that

tip in the Plaintiff’s favor. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that the Motion for

Injunctive Relief be DENIED. 

C. RECOMMENDATION 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment and

Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be DENIED. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 46 Filed 12/13/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05079-LJO -SMS Document 46 Filed 12/13/05 Page 5 of 5