Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00275-2/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

MICHAEL W. SCHLAICK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0275 MCE GGH P

vs.

WARDEN CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 8, 2005, defendant Dickinson filed a summary judgment motion. 

On September 21, 2005, the remaining defendants filed a separate summary judgment motion. 

On November 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a document titled “Opposition to Defendants Motion for

Summary Judgment.” While it is clear that plaintiff intends this opposition to address the

summary judgment motion filed September 21, 2005, it is unclear whether plaintiff’s opposition

addresses defendant Dickinson’s summary judgment motion. More importantly, the opposition

is untimely if it is also addressed to defendant Dickinson’s motion.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00275-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 04/10/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this

order, plaintiff shall inform the court whether his November 1, 2005, opposition is intended to

address defendant Dickinson’s summary judgment motion and, if so, why the opposition should

not be deemed untimely as to defendant Dickinson’s motion.

DATED: 4/10/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

sch275.osc

Case 2:04-cv-00275-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2