Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02335/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02335-1/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

HERBERT M. BELLINGER, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2335 LKK GGH P

vs.

DEPUTY ALLBEE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 25, 2005, the court recommended that defendants’ December 17, 2004,

summary judgment motion be granted in part and denied in part. In considering defendants’

motion, the court construed plaintiff’s December 23, 2004, summary judgment motion, as an

opposition to defendants’ motion. 

The court did not treat plaintiff’s December 23, 2004, motion as a cross-motion

because it was untimely. Pursuant to the October 13, 2004, order, the motion cut-off date was

December 17, 2004. The proof of service attached to plaintiff’s December 23, 2004, summary

judgment motion states that plaintiff “placed” his motion in the “United States Mails” on

December 3, 2004. Plaintiff does not benefit from the “mailbox rule” because he mailed his

motion directly rather than delivering it to jail authorities for forwarding to the court. See

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988).

Case 2:02-cv-02335-LKK -GGH Document 64 Filed 05/04/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 23, 2004,

summary judgment is construed as an opposition to defendants’ December 17, 2004, summary

judgment motion.

DATED: 5/3/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

bell2335.ord

Case 2:02-cv-02335-LKK -GGH Document 64 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2