Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01730/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01730-7/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

CHESTER RAY WISEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERRERA, et al 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01730-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

(Docs. 32, 34, 35) 

On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 32.) 

On November 13, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motion on the grounds that 

it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and Local Rule 260(a). (Doc. 34.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 24, 2014. (Doc. 38.) 

In their motion to strike, Defendants correctly state that Plaintiff failed to cite to record 

material to support his Statement of Undisputed Facts. (Doc. 34, p.1.) Further, upon review, no 

assistance is found in his memorandum of points and authorities supporting his motion as 

Plaintiff only generally refers to the attached exhibits (i.e., "See Exhibits A, C, and D") rather 

than pointing the reader the specific evidence used to support his position/arguments (e.g., "See 

Exhibit A, Def. Godinez resp to Rog. #3, p. 3"). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 

judgment is deficient as it fails to comply with both Local Rule 260 and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56. 

Case 1:12-cv-01730-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 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

1

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff's declaration in support of his motion contains 

improper legal conclusions and opinion testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

56(c)(4). (Doc. 34, p. 3.) Indeed, both of the declarations that Plaintiff attached to his motion do 

contain improper legal conclusions and opinion testimony rather than statements based on his 

personal knowledge. 

In opposition to Defendants' motion to strike, Plaintiff acknowledges the errors and argues 

that he can rectify the errors by being allowed to submit a new Statement of Undisputed Facts and 

new declarations to support his motion. However, since his motion and all supporting documents 

have already been filed with the Court and total nearly two-hundred pages, it appears that 

confusion would easily be created by allowing Plaintiff to submit edited versions of various 

excerpted documents. The clearer, less confusing path, would be to strike Plaintiff's motion for 

partial summary judgment and grant him leave to file anew.1 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment, filed 

on November 13, 2014 (Doc. 34) is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, filed on October 31, 2014 (Doc. 

32), and is STRICKEN from the record in this action, without prejudice;

3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file another motion for summary judgment prior to the 

dispositive motions deadline of March 23, 2015 (see Doc. 27) and if Plaintiff 

desires to do so, but is unable to timely comply, he should request an extension of 

time prior to that deadline, which will be liberally considered; and

///

///

///

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff would do well to look to the motion for summary judgment that Defendants filed on December 19, 2014 

(Doc. 37) for guidelines/formatting if he desires to file another motion for summary judgment. 

Case 1:12-cv-01730-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 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

4. Defendant's motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff's 

motion for partial summary judgment, filed November 13, 2014 (Doc. 35), is 

DISREGARDED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01730-AWI-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3