Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00734/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00734-21/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARTHUR GLENN JONES, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAM WONG, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0734 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a motion for reconsideration directed to the undersigned. ECF No. 115. 

 By order filed December 4, 2019, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion for an 

extension of time to file a sur-reply to defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds 

that Local Rule 230(l) did not provide for a sur-reply and plaintiff had not provided an 

explanation as to why he should be allowed to file one. ECF No. 114. Plaintiff now seeks 

reconsideration of that order, and leave to file a sur-reply, on the ground that defendants have 

misstated the facts by claiming the medical records he submitted are not authenticated and are 

therefore unreliable. ECF No. 115 at 4. He argues that if he is not allowed to file a sur-reply the 

court will take defendants’ statements as true. Id. 

Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different 

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC Document 116 Filed 01/14/20 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 

2 

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3). Although plaintiff has now 

provided the reason that he seeks leave to file a sur-reply, the undersigned does not find the 

reason sufficient to grant the request. While “only admissible evidence may be considered by the 

trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment,” Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., 

854 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted), “[a]t the summary judgment stage, [the 

court does] not focus on the admissibility of the evidence’s form. [It] instead focus[es] on the 

admissibility of its contents,” Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations 

omitted); Aholelei v. Haw. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 220 F. App’x 670, 672 (9th Cir. 2007) (district 

court abused its discretion in not considering plaintiff’s evidence at summary judgment “which 

consisted primarily of litigation and administrative documents involving another prisoner and 

letters from other prisoners” and could be made admissible at trial). In other words, the court can 

consider the evidence if its contents could be presented in an admissible form at trial. Fraser, 342 

F.3d at 1037. Accordingly, plaintiff’s assertion that the court will be required to disregard his 

documents because of defendants’ “misstatements” regarding whether they have been 

authenticated is mistaken, and the court is free to consider the documents if it appears they could 

be made admissible at trial. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and 

for leave to file a sur-reply, ECF No. 115, is DENIED. 

DATED: January 13, 2020 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-TLN-AC Document 116 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2