Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISAAC,

Defendant.

1:11-cv-01914-AWI-GSA (PC)

ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF 

OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FILE 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

(ECF Nos. 23, 27.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983. On June 30, 2015, Defendant Isaac (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss this case as 

barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. (ECF No. 23.) On July 9, 2015 

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 27.) Both of these motions are 

pending.

On August 10, 2015, defense counsel filed a declaration in lieu of reply to Plaintiff’s 

opposition. (ECF No. 37.) In her declaration, defense counsel argues that Plaintiff failed to file a 

timely opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and therefore the motion to dismiss stands 

submitted without any opposition. (Id. at 2 ¶5.)

On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply to defense counsel’s declaration. (ECF No. 

38.) Plaintiff argues that the motion to dismiss is not unopposed, because he filed his motion for 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 39 Filed 08/25/15 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

summary judgment in timely opposition to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff acknowledges that he 

“made a mistake, due to my lack of legal education, by filing a motion for summary judgment” 

instead of an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 38 at 2 ¶8.)

The court finds good cause to allow Plaintiff to correct his mistake. The Court shall open a 

thirty-day time period for Plaintiff to replace his motion for summary judgment with an 

opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, if he so wishes. Plaintiff has two options upon 

receipt of this order. Plaintiff may either (1) withdraw his motion for summary judgment of July 

9, 2015 and file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss of June 30, 2015, or (2) proceed

with the motion to dismiss unopposed.

1

 The opposition, if any, must be complete in itself and 

must not refer back to any prior document. L.R. 220.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, 

withdraw his motion for summary judgment of July 9, 2015 and file an opposition 

to Defendants= motion to dismiss of June 30, 2015;

2. If Plaintiff elects to withdraw the motion for summary judgment and file an 

opposition, Defendant may file a reply pursuant to Local Rule 230(l); and

3. If Plaintiff does not comply with this order, the court shall deem Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss submitted without opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

If Plaintiff chooses to replace his motion for summary judgment with an opposition to the motion to dismiss, 

Plaintiff is not precluded from bringing another motion for summary judgment.

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 39 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2