Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01193-6/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

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1193 GEB JFM P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. On

January 6, 2005, plaintiff submitted his statement regarding housing logs. Plaintiff states that the

C Facility Building 3 housing logs from the periods of April 1, 2002 through April 30, 2003,

pages 2 through 450, are relevant because they are the actual logs to the building in which

plaintiff was housed and are needed at trial as evidence to refute defendants’ assertions that

plaintiff received adequate exercise. Plaintiff states that these logs verify the actual yard time

plaintiff received during the time frame at issue herein.

Plaintiff is cautioned that it will be his responsibility to sift through these housing

logs if he believes that they contain evidence which support his case on summary judgment or at

trial. 

Case 2:03-cv-01193-GEB -JFM Document 63 Filed 01/25/06 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

2

In light of the resolution of the discovery dispute the court will reset the pretrial

motion deadline and schedule this case for pretrial conference. In the event that a motion for

summary judgment is filed the court will examine the pleadings and other relevant filings,

together with affidavits, if any. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court will believe the evidence

submitted by the party who has not filed for summary judgment, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and will drawn all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from

the facts placed before the court in favor of the opposing party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 24, 2006.

001; fost1193.hsg

Case 2:03-cv-01193-GEB -JFM Document 63 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2