Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05894-11/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

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5894-REC-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

FILE AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND STRIKING AMENDED

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 74 and 79)

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint filed June

28, 2004, against defendants Rodriguez, Aguirre, Quinn-Robicheau, and Vargas on plaintiff’s

retaliation claims. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on August 15, 2005, and

defendants opposed the motion on October 24, 2005. On November 30, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion seeking leave to file an amended motion for summary judgment, and on December 9, 2005,

defendants filed an opposition. On December 15, 2005, while his motion for leave to file an

amended motion was still pending, plaintiff filed an amended motion for summary judgment. 

In his motion for leave to file an amended motion for summary judgment, plaintiff contends

that he was unaware he needed to submit a statement of undisputed facts and evidence, along with

a memorandum of points and authorities and request for judicial notice. Plaintiff already submitted

a memorandum of points and authorities with his August 15 motion for summary judgment and a

request for judicial notice is not a requirement in moving for summary judgment. Further, plaintiff’s

contention that he did not know he needed to submit a statement of undisputed facts and evidence

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 85 Filed 12/20/05 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

2

is belied by the record in this case. On June 30, 2005, the undersigned issued a Findings and

Recommendations recommending denial of plaintiff’s earlier motion for summary judgment on the

ground that it was procedurally deficient. In that F&R, the court touched upon the need for a

statement of undisputed facts and for citations to the evidence relied upon in support of the facts.

Plaintiff may not now be heard to claim that he was unaware of these requirements. That plaintiff

could have or should have presented him his second motion for summary judgment differently and

now wishes to do so does not constitute good cause for filing an amended motion for summary

judgment. 

Further, defendants expended a considerable amount of time responding to plaintiff’s 122

undisputed facts, despite plaintiff’s failure to format them exactly as he should have. Allowing

plaintiff to file an amended motion at this juncture would result in prejudice to defendants.

Finally, plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent his own pending motion for leave to file an

amended motion by filing the motion prior to receiving permission from the court to do so is viewed

with disfavor by this court. Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court prior to filing his amended motion

for summary judgment and it shall be stricken from the record.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended motion for summary judgment,

filed November 30, 2005, is HEREBY DENIED, and plaintiff’s amended motion for summary

judgment, filed December 15, 2005, is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05894-AWI-LJO Document 85 Filed 12/20/05 Page 2 of 2