Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01822-2/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

27

28 1

 The court notes that the unverified complaint is not admissible to support Plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment. Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2006).

- 1 - 07cv1822

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED DARNELL DANIELS

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1822 JM(POR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

O. ALVARADO, et al.

Defendants.

In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1983, Plaintiff Ted Darnell Daniels

moves for summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment Claim that Defendants used excessive force.

The only basis for the motion for summary judgment is Plaintiff’s argument that this court denied

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and therefore there is no genuine issue

of material facts. Plaintiff fails to submit any evidence in support of his motion.1

The moving party on a motion for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the

court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the file which it believes

demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, when “‘the moving party bears the burden of proof

at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 32 Filed 08/06/09 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 - 07cv1822

were uncontroverted at trial.’” Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis

in original) (quoting International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir.

1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992)).

Here, Plaintiff’s failure to submit any evidence in support of his motion is fatal to his motion

for summary judgment brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Consequently, the court denies the

motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01822-JM-POR Document 32 Filed 08/06/09 Page 2 of 2