Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05820/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05820-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT KEITH BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN LEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05820-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADD 

DOCUMENTS TO OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 49

Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on September 24, 2015, and 

plaintiff filed an opposition on October 26, 2015. Several months later, on February 10, 2016, the 

court issued an order granting partial summary judgment and referred the action to the pro se 

prisoner mediation program. (Docket No. 48.) About a week after the court issued the order, 

plaintiff filed a motion to add documents to his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

(Docket No. 49.) The documents he seeks to add to his opposition are five inmate grievances. 

The motion to add the documents to his opposition to the motion for summary judgment is 

DENIED. (Docket No. 49.) First, plaintiff did not explain why he did not attach the exhibits to 

his opposition, or submit them in the more than three months that the motion for summary 

judgment was pending. Although plaintiff wrote that the defendants had the documents, he did 

not state when he received a copy of any of those documents from defendants or other sources. 

He plainly had at least one of them in September, because it was an exhibit to defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment (compare Docket No. 49 at 3 with Docket No. 38-2 at 39), and the other 

four grievances have printed markings on the bottom that one of the copies of the 3-part form is 

for the prisoner to keep, suggesting that he has had a copy of those four grievances since the day 

he wrote each one. The motion to add the documents therefore is untimely. Second, plaintiff does 

Case 3:13-cv-05820-SI Document 51 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not show that any of the five inmate grievances would enable him to avoid the partial summary 

judgment that was granted. The court’s analysis in the order granting summary judgment did not 

rest on plaintiff’s failure to present copies of his inmate grievances.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05820-SI Document 51 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 2