Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01904-7/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

1

 Defendants moved to dismiss on December 26, 2006. However, they withdrew the

motion on January 24, 2007.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JODEE GARRETT, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1904 RRB EFB P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the September 14, 2006, amended complaint. On

December 19, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 31, 2007,

defendants filed an answer.1

A party seeking relief on a claim,

may, at any time after the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the

action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party,

move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the parties

favor upon all or any part thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Upon a proper motion, the court must grant summary judgment,

if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 37 Filed 08/01/07 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

2

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To facilitate this

process, the Local Rules of this Court provide:

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.

L. R. 56-260(a). In the December 19, 2006, motion, plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to relief

because he filed an amended complaint, but defendants had not yet filed an answer. In the

February 20, 2007 motion, plaintiff addresses the assertions defendants make in their answer,

and argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because defendants did not

demonstrate a genuine factual dispute. Plaintiff confuses the function of the answer and the

function of summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendants need not demonstrate

a genuine dispute as to any particular material fact in the answer. The purpose of the answer is

to simply admit or deny allegations of the complaint, not to test sufficiency of evidence. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a), 8(b). While admitted facts in an answer might support summary judgment

if there are not other material facts in dispute, neither of plaintiff’s motions contains a Statement

of Undisputed Facts showing that all material facts have been conceded and that there remains

no factual issues for trial. Plaintiff nowhere alleges with specificity the undisputed facts which

entitle him to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s December 19, 2006, and February

20, 2007, motions for summary judgment be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with 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

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 37 Filed 08/01/07 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

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 31, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01904-JAM-EFB Document 37 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 3