Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alamin Samad v. Susan L. Hubbard

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 5, 2011

ALAMIN SAMAD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUSAN L. HUBBARD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for correction and motion for summary judgment.

In his motion for correction, plaintiff contends that this court erroneously stated in its September 22, 2010 order that plaintiff had filed a "motion to amend" on August 27, 2010, when in fact he had filed a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff is advised that the court has reviewed his August 27, 2010 filing. Plaintiff wrote "motion to amend" in the caption of that filing. In any event, the court construed plaintiff's August 27, 2010 "motion to amend" as a motion for reconsideration, which the assigned district judge denied. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for correction as unnecessary.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for summary judgment. In actuality, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is an unauthorized and unnecessary response to defendant Medina's answer. In his motion, plaintiff "denies" each of the defendant's affirmative defenses. For example, he denies that his claims are barred by the statute of limitations and denies that each of his claims fails to state a claim. Plaintiff also reiterates some of the allegations of his complaint and contends that defendant Medina did not dispute them in his answer. Plaintiff is advised that defendant Medina did in fact dispute the allegations contained in plaintiff's second amended complaint by denying all of them except those allegations expressly admitted to in the answer. In this regard, plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact or that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Moreover, plaintiff's motion fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 260. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for correction (Doc. No. 23) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 27) is denied.

20110705

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.