Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Luckey
Plaintiff
Visalia Unified School District
Defendant

Document Text:

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

TIMOTHY LUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB

ORDER

On December 18, 2014, Defendant Visalia Unified School District (“Defendant”) filed 

what purports to be an opposition to Plaintiff Timothy Luckey’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 44.) However, Plaintiff has not filed any motion for summary 

judgment. Accordingly, the Court will disregard Defendant’s filing.

On September 19, 2014 and December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed two documents; both 

entitled “Undisputed Material Fact.” (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) However, neither filing appears to be a 

motion. Neither filing asks the Court to enter summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The 

filings appear to merely be a list of facts which Plaintiff contends are undisputed. From the 

Court’s experience, it is not uncommon to receive similar filings from pro se litigants who are 

unfamiliar with legal proceedings. These filings are functionally meaningless. Plaintiff is 

advised that, generally speaking, unless he is asking for specific relief from the Court through a 

properly noticed motion, he is not required to file anything with the Court unless the Court 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 12/30/14 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

2

orders Plaintiff to file it, or it is required by the Local Rules or the Rules of Federal Procedure

(such as an opposition to a motion filed by Defendant). Since Plaintiff’s filings are not motions, 

are not oppositions to a motion filed by Defendant, and were not otherwise required by Court 

order, Local Rule, or a Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court will disregard Plaintiff’s September 

19, 2014 and December 1, 2014 filings.

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s December 18, 

2014 and Plaintiff’s September 19, 2014 and December 1, 2014 filings are DISREGARDED by 

the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 2