Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02060/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02060-32/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AZHAR LAL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07-cv-2060 KJM EFB P

vs.

FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dckt.

No. 166. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion is due on or before November 18, 2012. 

Dckt. No. 179. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the defendants exclude what plaintiff

deems to be “unnecessary arguments” from their summary judgment motion. Dckt. No. 180. 

Plaintiff contends that the time for him to respond to the motion for summary judgment should

not start running until the instant motion is addressed because he presently has “no real

understanding of what he may have to litigate” and will only “have an understanding of the task”

after the court rules on the instant request. Id. at 2-3. 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied as both procedurally and substantively improper. 

////

1

Case 2:07-cv-02060-KJM-EFB Document 181 Filed 10/22/12 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

Plaintiff’s motion is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s Local

Rules. To the extent plaintiff finds defendants’ arguments to be unnecessary, abusive, or

irrelevant, plaintiff must follow the procedures set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Moreover, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for opposing a summary

judgment motion on August 29, 2012. See Dckt. No. 166 (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. with notice

to plaintiff pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012) and Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

Finally, plaintiff should not assume that his requests, such as the one currently before the

court, will be granted, or that the mere filing of the request in any way relieves him of his

obligation to diligently prosecute his case and comply with the deadlines established by the

court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 17, 2012 motion (Dckt.

No. 180) is denied.

DATED: October 22, 2012.

2

Case 2:07-cv-02060-KJM-EFB Document 181 Filed 10/22/12 Page 2 of 2