Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313-13/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

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03-6313 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc.

63.) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY

DAYS TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Willie D. Randle is (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

On January 26, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff moved

to strike the Motion for Summary Judgment on February 9, 2007, stating that it was untimely

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiff states that Rule 56(c) requires

that Defendants have served him with their Motion ten days before the February 8, 2007,

dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order issued April 7, 2006. 

The Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order expressly provided that the deadline for the

filing of any dispositive motion is February 8, 2007. According to the Court docket, the Motion

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 67 Filed 02/16/07 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

27

28

“All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in cases wherein one party is 1

incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument unless

otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be noticed on the motion calendar. Opposition, if any, to

the granting of the motion shall be served and filed with the Clerk by the responding party not more than

eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after the date of service of the motion.” 

Local Rule 78-230(m).

Local Rule 56-260(c) provides: “Any party opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary 2

adjudication shall reproduce the itemized facts in the Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts that are

undisputed and deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a citation to the particular portions of any

pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission or other document relied upon in support of that

denial. The opposing party may also file a concise “Statement of Disputed Facts,” and the source thereof in the

record, of all additional material facts as to which there is a genuine issue precluding summary judgment or

adjudication. The opposing party shall be responsible for the filing with the Clerk of all evidentiary documents cited

in the opposing papers.” 

2

was filed on January 26, 2007, and is thus, timely. Plaintiff’s believe that the Motion should

have been served on him ten days prior to the date the Motion was filed is also incorrect. 

According to the provision of Rule 56 cited by Plaintiff, such a Motion is to be served on the

opposing party 10 days prior to the hearing, however, no hearing has been scheduled in this case. 

The reason for this rule is to allow the opposing party to review the Motion and its supporting

evidence before making an appearance in court. In Plaintiff’s case, because no hearing is set and

pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), Plaintiff is required to submit an Opposition or Statement of

Non-Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is advised that in formulating 1

his Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment, he must follow the instructions provided in

Local Rule 56-260(b).2

In light of the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Strike the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment is due within

THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 67 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2