Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00211/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00211-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

DESHA M. CARTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ADKINSON, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-0211 OWW DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

PLAINTIFF’S PRE-DISCOVERY

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[DOC #14]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and if forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On July 26, 2005, this Court ordered the United States Marshal

to serve the amended complaint on D. Adkinson, the only defendant in this case. On August 12,

2005, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, prior to service of the amended complaint on

defendant and prior to defendant’s appearance in this action. Plaintiff did not serve the motion for

summary judgment on defendant nor did defendant’s counsel receive electronic notice from the

Court regarding the motion because defendant did not retain the Attorney General as counsel until

October 3, 2005. See Defendant’s opposition to motion for summary judgment at 3:12-16. On

October 25, 2005, after service of the amended complaint, defendant filed an opposition to the

motion for summary judgment indicating that he did not become aware of the motion until October

16, 2006. Id. Defendant argues the motion must be denied in that plaintiff did not serve him with

the motion and it is premature because the Court did not open discovery in this case until February 2,

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 32 Filed 02/22/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

2006. On November 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants’ opposition. 

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue

as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). Under summary judgment practice, the moving party 

[A]lways bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on

file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), motions in

prisoner cases are deemed submitted twenty-eight (28) days after service of the motion or when a

reply is filed, whichever is later. If the required notice of a motion for summary judgment has not

been given, the Court generally lacks authority to grant the motion. See Reese v. Sparks, 760 F.2d

64, 66 (3d. Cir. 1985). Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. Should it appear from the affidavits of a party

opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts

essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for

judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or

depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. 

Here, plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment prior to service of the complaint on defendant

and did not serve defendant with his motion. Defendants only learned of the motion when plaintiff

filed a subsequent request to have the motion granted. Because defendant was never served with the

motion, it is defective and must be denied. Further, the Court only recently opened discovery in this

case by its February 2, 2006 order. Thus, plaintiff’s pre-discovery motion for summary judgment is

premature because neither party has had an opportunity to perform discovery. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment be DENIED, without prejudice to refiling at a later date, after the parties have

had the opportunity to conduct discovery.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 32 Filed 02/22/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 22, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00211-LJO -DLB Document 32 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 3