Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773-11/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GENTRY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv01773 DLB PC

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 

12(B)(6) AS A MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 

SUBMIT ANY FURTHER BRIEFING 

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

NOTICE AND WARNING OF 

REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPOSING 

DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTION

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action 

on October 25, 2011. 

On May 20, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and 

found the following cognizable claims: (1) First Amendment retaliation claim against 

Defendants Gentry, Noyce, Eubanks, Tyree, Medrano, Holman, Holland and Steadman; and (2) 

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 58 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 4
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

violation of due process against Defendants Eubanks, Tyree, Medrano, Holland and Gutierrez. 

The Court dismissed all other claims and Defendants.

On November 26, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the due process claims 

based on failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust.1 Defendant Holman joined in the motion 

on December 13, 2013.

Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 6, 2014, and with Court permission, he filed a 

supplemental opposition on January 28, 2014. 

Defendants filed their reply on March 13, 2014.

Plaintiff’s motion to file a sur-reply is also pending.

After reviewing the pleadings and related evidence submitted by the parties, the Court 

ORDERS that the portion of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6) be 

converted into a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The parties SHALL submit any further 

briefing within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. The parties are relieved of 

their obligation to file a Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts.

The Court hereby notifies Plaintiff of the following rights and requirements for opposing 

the motion2:

1. A motion for summary judgment is a request for judgment on some or all of 

Plaintiff’s claims in favor of Defendants without trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Defendants’ 

motion sets forth the facts which they contend are not reasonably subject to dispute and that 

entitle them to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

 

1 Defendants are not moving to dismiss the retaliation claim. The Court will address the exhaustion argument by 

separate order.

2

 Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 

952 (9th Cir. 1998); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). The requirements have been tailored to 

fit the circumstances of this action. 

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 58 Filed 04/01/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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. Plaintiff has the right to oppose a motion for summary judgment. To oppose the 

motion, Plaintiff must show proof of his claims. Plaintiff may agree with the facts set forth in 

Defendants’ motion but argue that Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

In the alternative, if Plaintiff does not agree with the facts set forth in Defendants’ 

motion, he may show that Defendants’ facts are disputed in one or more of the following ways: 

(1) Plaintiff may rely upon statements made under the penalty of perjury in the complaint or the 

opposition if (a) the complaint or opposition shows that Plaintiff has personal knowledge of the 

matters stated and (b) Plaintiff calls to the Court’s attention those parts of the complaint or 

opposition upon which Plaintiff relies; (2) Plaintiff may serve and file declarations setting forth 

the facts which Plaintiff believes prove his claims; (3) Plaintiff may rely upon written records but 

Plaintiff must prove that the records are what he claims they are; or (4) Plaintiff may rely upon 

all or any part of the transcript of one or more depositions, answers to interrogatories, or 

admissions obtained in this proceeding. Should Plaintiff fail to contradict Defendants’ motion 

with declarations or other evidence, Defendants’ evidence will be taken as truth, and final 

judgment may be entered without a full trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

3. If discovery has not yet been opened or if discovery is still open and Plaintiff is 

not yet able to present facts to justify the opposition to the motion, the Court will consider a 

request to postpone consideration of Defendants’ motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Any request to 

postpone consideration of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must include the 

following: (1) a declaration setting forth the specific facts Plaintiff hopes to elicit from further 

discovery, (2) a showing that the facts exist, and (3) a showing that the facts are essential to 

opposing the motion for summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 

1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009); Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 

(9th Cir. 2006); State of California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). The request 

to postpone the motion for summary judgment must identify what information is sought and how 

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 58 Filed 04/01/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

it would preclude summary judgment. Blough, 574 F.3d at 1091 n.5; Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1100-

01; Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998); Local Rule 260(b). 

4. Unsigned declarations will be stricken, and declarations not signed under penalty 

of perjury have no evidentiary value.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 58 Filed 04/01/14 Page 4 of 4