The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY (DOC. 113)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 109)
Plaintiff David Maddox ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant W. Young for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed November 2, 2010. Doc. 109. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 2, 2010. *fn1 Doc. 111. Defendant filed his reply on December 7, 2010. Doc. 112. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
On January 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant Young's Reply Doc. 113.
The Court treats this filing as a surreply. Surreplies are not generally allowed under the Local Rules of this Court. See Local Rule 230(l). The Court neither requested nor granted permission for Plaintiff to file a surreply. Plaintiff's surreply is HEREBY ORDERED stricken. *fn2
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). *fn3 Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always 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).
"[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on
a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in
reliance solely on the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file.'" Id. at
324. Indeed, summary judgment should be entered, after adequate time
for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial. Id. at 322. "[A] complete failure
of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id.
In such a circumstance, summary judgment should be granted, "so
long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the
standard for entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is
satisfied." Id. at 323.
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine dispute as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute,
the opposing party may not
rely upon the denials of its pleadings, but is required to tender
evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or
admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the
dispute exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Matsushita ,
475 U.S. at 586 n.11. The opposing party must demonstrate that the
fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law, Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);
Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n , 322
F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2002); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v.
Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n , 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.
1987), and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,
Long v. County of Los Angeles , 442 F.3d 1178, 1185
(9th Cir. 2006); Wool v. Tandem Computers, Inc. ,
818 F.2d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987).
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." T.W. Elec. Serv. , 809 F.2d at 631. Thus, the "purpose of summary judgment is to 'pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.'" Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting former Rule 56(e) advisory committee's note on 1963 amendments).
In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the court examines the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, Anderson , 477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party, Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587 (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc. , 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam)). Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party's obligation to produce a factual ...