Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-29/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

1:08-cv-00986-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SUBMIT THREE

AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 129.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE THREE

AFFIDAVITS AS PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS

IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION 

Valentine Underwood ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July

17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original Complaint, against defendants

Correctional Officer (“C/O”) M. Northcutt and C/O S. Martin for retaliation, in violation of the

First Amendment; and against defendants C/O M. Northcutt, C/O S. Martin, C/O D. Caviness, C/O

A. Trujillo, and C/O P. Truitt, ("Defendants") for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1

Defendant Seth Lantz was dismissed from this action on July 18, 2011, via Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

1

(Doc. 107.) Defendant J. Fambrough was dismissed from this action on December 9, 2011, via Plaintiff's motion to

dismiss. (Doc. 121.) All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009, based on

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 31.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 132 Filed 06/11/12 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

§ 636(c), and on June 15, 2011, this case was reassigned to the undersigned for all further

proceedings. (Docs. 4, 97, 102.)

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 17, 2012. (Doc. 122.) On

April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 127.) Four days later, on April

30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to submit three certified affidavits in support of his opposition. 

(Doc. 129.) Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s motion. 

Plaintiff explains that he was unable to submit the certified affidavits with his opposition

because he did not receive the affidavits until after he had submitted the opposition. Good cause

appearing, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted, and the certified affidavits shall be filed as exhibits

to the opposition.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to submit three certified affidavits in support of his opposition

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s three affidavits, attached to the Motion

filed on April 30, 2012 (Doc. 129), as Plaintiff’s exhibits in support of his

opposition (Doc. 127) to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 8, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 132 Filed 06/11/12 Page 2 of 2