Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02518/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02518-11/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

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2518 FCD DAD P

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 26, 2007, the court ordered defendants to provide responses to

certain special interrogatories and, in light of this discovery, granted plaintiff leave to file a

supplemental opposition to defendants’ September 1, 2006 motion for summary

judgment/adjudication of issues. Subsequently, on April 27, 2007, plaintiff was granted an

extension of time to file his supplemental opposition. On May 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a

declaration explaining why he had still not filed his supplemental opposition. Plaintiff contends

that on April 16, 2007, he was transferred to the California Correctional Training Facility in

Soledad, California and that he did not receive the responses to the special interrogatories prior to 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 107 Filed 06/01/07 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

his transfer. In addition, plaintiff contends that he did not receive his legal property until May

14, 2007.

The court will grant plaintiff a final extension of time to file his supplemental

opposition to the defendants’ motion. Plaintiff is advised that the purpose of allowing him to file

a supplemental opposition is to provide him an opportunity to use the special interrogatories

responses in attempting to demonstrate the existence of a disputed issue of material fact. 

Therefore, the supplemental opposition should be concise and should not include the same

arguments already presented in plaintiff’s October 25, 2006 statement of genuine issues of

material facts, which the court has construed as plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary

judgment/adjudication of issues. 

The court also notes that in plaintiff’s October 25, 2006 opposition, he refers to an

Exhibit C which is described as a “Special Diet Request.” This exhibit was not included with the

opposition and plaintiff will be ordered to submit it with his supplemental opposition if he

wishes it to be considered. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before June 15, 2007,

plaintiff shall file his supplemental opposition to defendants’ September 1, 2006 motion for

summary judgment/adjudication of issues as well as Exhibit C (Special Diet Request) to his

previously filed opposition. Should plaintiff fail to comply with this order, the court will proceed

to issue findings and recommendations on defendants’ summary judgment motion without

further opposition. 

DATED: June 1, 2007.

DAD:4

will2518.36oppo

Case 2:03-cv-02518-DAD Document 107 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 2