Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-1/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

SCOTT E. STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00-6331 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 266.) 

 Scott E. Stearns (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 27, 2004, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 261.) 

Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment but on October 14,

2004, filed a “Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 266.) 

On October 25, 2004, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment. (Docs. 270-271.) Plaintiff filed his Reply to Defendant’s Opposition on

November 1, 2004. (Docs.272, 273.) 

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 301 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 4
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

A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to

any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the

burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a Summary Judgment Motion may properly be

made in reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file.'" Id. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of

an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial. Id. at 322. "[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the

nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. In such a

circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, "so long as whatever is before the district

court demonstrates that the standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is

satisfied." Id. at 323.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing

party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In attempting to establish the

existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party may not rely upon the denials of its

pleadings, but is required to tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or

admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Rule 56(e);

Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in

contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific

Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e.,

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 301 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 4
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

1The Court notes further that the Cross Motion raises issues unrelated to the Due Process claims at issue in

Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment. For example, Plaintiff complains in “ground 1" that the Del Norte

Superior Court erroneously allowed the Defendants to submit false information in their case. (Cross Motion at 3.) 

The remaining “ground” raised by Plaintiff in this pleading appear to concern events or documents filed in the

Superior Court case.

3

the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, Wool

v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).

The Local Rules require that “[e]ach motion for summary judgment or summary

adjudication shall be accompanied by a ‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ which 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, anser, admission or other

document relied upon to establish that fact.” Local Rule 56-260(a). 

The Court has reviewed the document titled “Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment” and

finds that it is not in compliance with Local Rule 56-260(a). Plaintiff’s calling a pleading a

cross-motion does not relieve him of his responsibility to submit the pleading in the proper form. 

A moving party’s failure to cite to the evidence relied upon in support of each fact makes a

responding party’s burden unnecessarily more difficult. The responding party should be able to

quickly ascertain what facts offered by Plaintiff are to be con tested and what evidence is relied

on in support of each fact.

1

 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

filed October 14, 2004, be DENIED. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of 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 “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 301 Filed 07/29/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 301 Filed 07/29/05 Page 4 of 4