Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUERSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-0450 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2020, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ summary 

judgment motion. (ECF No. 50.) The opposition did not include a response to defendants’ 

statement of undisputed facts. The opposition also failed to include any evidentiary documents 

cited in the opposition.

On January 27, 2020, the undersigned vacated the hearing regarding defendants’ summary 

judgment motion and granted plaintiff fourteen days to file a properly supported opposition. 

(ECF No. 52.)

On January 28, 2020, defendants filed a request for clarification of the January 27, 2020 

order. (ECF No. 53.) Defendants state that it is not clear if the January 27, 2020 order allows 

plaintiff to file an entire new opposition, or if the order allows plaintiff to re-file the opposition he 

filed on January 9, 2020, limited to the same arguments and the same evidence. Defendants also 

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 54 Filed 02/05/20 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

object that the January 9, 2020 order did not set a time for defendants to file a reply to the 

amended opposition. 

In granting plaintiff leave to file a properly supported opposition, the undersigned 

intended that plaintiff be limited to the same arguments and evidence cited in the original 

opposition. The undersigned did not intend to grant plaintiff leave to file a “new” opposition. 

Based on these circumstances, it does not appear that an amended reply is necessary. However, if 

defendants would like to file an amended reply to the properly supported opposition, they may do 

so within seven days of the filing date of the properly supported opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The undersigned clarifies that plaintiff’s properly supported opposition shall be 

limited to the same arguments and evidence cited in the original opposition;

2. Due to this clarification, the undersigned orders the properly supported opposition due 

within fourteen days of the date of this order; defendants may file an amended reply 

within seven days thereafter.

Dated: February 5, 2020

Tay450.amd

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 54 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2