Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02243/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02243-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT H. NESBITT, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2243 MCE DAD P

vs.

NEIL WAKABAYSHI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

By order filed July 8, 2005, the court notified plaintiff that the court had not

received documents in opposition to the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants

Putnam and Johnson, even though defendants Putnam and Johnson had filed replies to plaintiff’s

opposition and defendant Johnson had joined with other defendants in objecting to plaintiff’s

evidence. Plaintiff was ordered to submit “exact duplicates of his opposition to the Putnam and

Johnson motions.” In response to the order, plaintiff has burdened the court and abused the

judicial process by submitting the missing documents along with duplicates of fifteen documents

already on file. Also before the court is defendants’ application to file additional replies to

plaintiff’s opposition.

The court finds that the following documents received from plaintiff on July 12,

2005, comprise his opposition to the Putnam and Johnson motions: the four documents docketed

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 445 Filed 07/20/05 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

2

as #423, 424, 425, and 426, in opposition to defendant Putnam’s motion for summary judgment;

the four documents docketed as #427, 428, 429, and 430, in opposition to defendant Johnson’s

motion for summary judgment; the two requests for judicial notice docketed as #434 and 435,

both seeking judicial notice of the same two declarations and Solano County’s strip search

policy; and the request for judicial notice docketed as #422, seeking judicial notice of four

internal affairs interviews and medical reports. These documents will be considered by the court.

The following documents received from plaintiff on July 12, 2005, are duplicative

of documents already on file: the four documents docketed as #418, 419, 420, and 421, in

opposition to defendant Cueva’s motion for summary judgment; the three documents docketed as

#431, 432, and 433, in opposition to defendant Gray’s motion for summary judgment; the four

documents docketed as #436, 437, 438, and 439, in opposition to defendant Eakin’s motion for

summary judgment; and the four documents docketed as #440, 441, 442, and 443, in opposition

to defendant C. Bidou’s motion for summary judgment. These duplicative documents will not be

considered by the court. To avoid confusion in the record, the court will strike these documents.

In their application to prepare replies on behalf of defendants Wakabayashi,

James, and M. Bidou, defendants assert that the court’s July 8, 2005 order “allow[ed] plaintiff to

file all of his opposition” by July 18, 2005, that there has been “a flurry of service and filing” by

plaintiff since the court issued its order, and that plaintiff’s filings include requests for judicial

notice that were not previously filed. Defendants Wakabayashi, James, and M. Bidou seek leave

to submit replies, objections, and responses to plaintiff’s oppositions.

The court’s July 8, 2005 order directed plaintiff to file duplicates of his opposition

to the Putnam and Johnson motions. Plaintiff was not granted leave to file any further opposition

to the motions filed by defendants Wakabayashi, James, and M. Bidou, and plaintiff did not do

so. Moreover, the docket reflects that on June 23, 2005, defendants Wakabayashi and James

filed replies to plaintiff’s opposition, along with objections to plaintiff’s evidence. Although

defendant M. Bidou did not file a reply, he has not shown good cause for his failure to do so, and

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 445 Filed 07/20/05 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

1

 Attached to the request for judicial notice docketed as #435 is a copy of plaintiff’s

statement of disputed facts in opposition to defendant Gray’s motion for summary judgment. It

appears that the statement of disputed facts was attached in error. The document is duplicative

and will be disregarded.

3

the court’s order concerning plaintiff’s opposition to the Putnam and Johnson motions does not

provide defendant M. Bidou with ground for filing an untimely reply. Defendants Wakabayashi,

James, and M. Bidou will not be granted leave to file additional replies, objections, or other

responses to plaintiff’s oppositions to their motions.

With regard to the three requests for judicial notice received from plaintiff on July

12, 2005, the court finds that defendants Putnam and Gray previously filed objections to the

request for judicial notice that has been filed and docketed as #435.1 (See Defs. Gray’s and

Putnam’s Objections to Pl.’s Evidence in Supp. of Opp’n to Mots. for Summ. J., filed June 16,

2005, docketed as #369.) In objections to evidence filed by defendants Eakin, Johnson, Cueva,

and C. Bidou on June 20, 2005, defendants state that plaintiff’s opposition references a request

for judicial notice but none was filed. (See Defs. Eakin’s, Johnson’s Cueva’s and C. Bidou’s

Objections to Pl.’s Evidence in Supp. of Opp’n to Mots. for Summ. J., filed June 20, 2005,

docketed as #391, at 3.) Good cause appearing, defendants Cueva and Johnson will be granted

leave to file objections to plaintiff’s request for judicial notice docketed as #434, and defendants

C. Bidou, Eakin, Gray, Putnam, Cueva, and Johnson will be granted leave to file objections to

plaintiff’s request for judicial notice docketed as #422.

The court does not anticipate granting any party leave to file further briefing or

evidence related to the pending motions for summary judgment. Findings and recommendations

will likely be issued in August, and all parties will be expected to file timely objections and

replies. Requests for extensions of time will be looked upon with great disfavor and may be

denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 445 Filed 07/20/05 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike the following documents filed by

plaintiff on July 12, 2005: the documents docketed as #418, 419, 420, 421, 431, 432, 433, 436,

437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, and 443;

2. The July 18, 2005 ex parte application by defendants Wakabayashi, James, and

M. Bidou to prepare replies is denied;

3. Defendants Cueva and Johnson are granted five court days from the date of

this order to file objections to plaintiff’s request for judicial notice docketed as #434; and

4. Defendants C. Bidou, Eakin, Gray, Putnam, Cueva, and Johnson are granted

five court days to file objections to plaintiff’s request for judicial notice docketed as #422.

DATED: July 20, 2005.

DAD:13

nesb2243.replies

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 445 Filed 07/20/05 Page 4 of 4