Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01558/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01558-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICE WHITE, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1558 OWW/WMW

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FROM JULY

2, 2007 TO AUGUST 20, 2007

AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO

FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN

COMPLIANCE WITH L.R. 56-

260(b) ON OR BEFORE JULY 23,

2007

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, set for hearing on

July 2, 2007, was not opposed by Plaintiffs Alice White and

Derrick White, each proceeding in pro per, until June 25, 2007. 

Pursuant to Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice, Plaintiffs'

respective oppositions were due to be filed by June 18, 2007. 

Plaintiffs' respective oppositions to the motion for summary

judgment are identical, although the opposition submitted by

Case 1:05-cv-01558-OWW -GSA Document 35 Filed 06/28/07 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

Plaintiff Derrick White's opposition was filed in No. CV-F- 1

05-1564. However, the Amended Complaint upon which Plaintiffs are

proceeding was filed in No. CV-F-05-1558, as was Defendants' motion

for summary judgment against both Plaintiffs. 

2

Plaintiff Derrick White is unsigned. Neither opposition 1

complies with the requirements of Rule 56-260(b), Local Rules of

Practice. Rule 56-260(b) provides: 

Any party opposing a motion for summary

judgment or summary adjudication shall

reproduce the itemized facts in the Statement

of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts

that are undisputed and deny those that are

disputed, including with each denial a

citation to the particular portions of any

pleading, affidavit, deposition,

interrogatory answer, admission or other

document relied upon in support of that

denial. The opposing party may also file a

concise 'Statement of Undisputed Facts,' and

the source thereof in the record, of all

additional material facts as to which there

is a genuine issue precluding summary

judgment or adjudication. The opposing party

shall be responsible for the filing with the

Clerk of all evidentiary documents cited in

the opposing papers. See L.R. 5-133(j). If

a need for discovery is asserted as a basis

for denial of the motion, the party opposing

the motion shall provide a specification of

the particular facts on which discovery is to

be had or the issues on which discovery is

necessary.

See also Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District, 237

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9 Cir. 2001): th

[T]he district court may determine whether

there is a genuine issue of material fact, on

summary judgment, based on the papers

submitted on the motion and such other papers

as may be on file and specifically referred

to and facts therein set forth in the motion

papers. Though the court has discretion in

appropriate circumstances to consider other

materials, it need not do so. The district

Case 1:05-cv-01558-OWW -GSA Document 35 Filed 06/28/07 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

court need not examine the entire file for

evidence establishing a genuine issue of

material fact, where the evidence is not set

forth in the opposing papers with adequate

references to that it could conveniently be

found.

The untimeliness of the oppositions and the failure to

comply with Rule 56-260(b) prevents Defendants and the Court from

being prepared to hear the motion for summary judgment on July 2,

2007. Because Plaintiffs are proceeding in pro per, they will be

given an opportunity to file oppositions to the motion in

compliance with the Local Rules of Practice.

For the reasons stated above:

1. Oral argument on Defendants' motion for summary judgment

is continued from Monday, July 2, 2007 to Monday, August 20, 2007

at 10:00 a.m. 

2. Plaintiffs shall submit their respective oppositions to

the motion for summary judgment in compliance with Rule 56-

260(b), Local Rules of Practice, on or before Monday, July 23,

2007. If not timely filed and in compliance with Rule 56-260(b),

Plaintiffs' oppositions will be disregarded for purposes of

resolving Defendants' motion for summary judgment. No further

failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice or the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure will be accommodated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01558-OWW -GSA Document 35 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 3