Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01116/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01116-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Clyde Brown, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D. Adams, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-08-1116-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Reply (Response) to

Petitioner Brown’s Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 41) On February 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a 108-page Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 38) Thereafter, on March 11, 2010,

Defendants filed an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the Court

should deny Plaintiff’s motion because he failed to include a separate statement of

undisputed material facts with citations to evidence to support these facts as required by

Local Rule 260(a). (Doc. # 39) 

The Court will not deny Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on this basis but will

require Plaintiff to submit a revised Motion for Summary Judgment “accompanied by a

‘Statement of Undisputed Facts’ that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific material

facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading,

Case 1:08-cv-01116-LJO -JLT Document 42 Filed 05/19/10 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 -

affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied upon to

establish that fact . . . .” See Local Rule 260(a). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED directing Plaintiff to submit a revised Motion for Summary

Judgment accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts with citations

to specific evidence to support each fact within 30 days of the date of this order.

In light of the Court’s ruling above,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

with leave to re-file as ordered above. (Doc. # 38)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Reply

(Response) to Petitioner Brown’s Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 41)

DATED this 18th day of May, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-01116-LJO -JLT Document 42 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 2