Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH J. PETILLO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 32)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 29)

The assigned magistrate judge made findings and recommended that Plaintiff’s motion 

for summary judgment be denied without prejudice because, among other things, the motion 

does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) or Local Rule 260(a). (Doc. 32.) 

Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 33.) 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the 

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter—including Plaintiff’s objections—the Court 

concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

In his objections, Plaintiff concedes that he did not file a statement of undisputed fact. Instead, he 

attached “material facts” in the form of documents, sworn statements, and transcripts. (Doc. 33 

at 1–3.) However, the statement of undisputed facts required by this Court’s local rules serves 

many purposes, including directing the opposing party and the Court to specific information on 

which a party is relying and which that party claims is undisputed. Filing supporting evidence to 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 34 Filed 10/04/22 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

support the material facts is required but is not a substitute for identifying the specific material 

facts at issue.1 The filing is not optional. Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations dated September 13, 2022 (Doc. 32) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed on September 9, 2022 (Doc. 29) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2022 

1 Plaintiff is advised that a motion under Rule 56 can be granted only if there the evidence demonstrates there is no 

dispute of material fact. If there is evidence that gives rise to a dispute of material fact, the motion must be denied. 

Before refiling his motion, Plaintiff should consider whether considering all of the evidence, there can be no dispute 

of material fact.

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 34 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 2