IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 8, 2012
CHRISTOPHER GRABEK, PLAINTIFF,
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On February 17, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. However, it appears that defendants have failed to serve plaintiff at his current address. Therefore, defendants will be ordered to re-serve the motion upon plaintiff at his RJ Donovan address and to file proof of such re-service within three days.
Although file-stamped as filed on February 27, 2012, by application of the mailbox rule,*fn1 plaintiff filed a purported motion (or cross-motion) for summary judgment on February 17, 2012. However, this would-be summary judgment motion is not in compliance with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 260(a), inasmuch as plaintiff fails to provide a "statement of undisputed facts" or even a memorandum of points and authorities in support of his motion. Instead, in his putative dispositive motion, he simply appends unauthenticated medical records (as well as portions of defendants' answer) to a statement to the effect that the medical documents show that he has had a number of emergency treatments for his medical condition, which plaintiff believes demonstrates that defendants' deliberate indifference in not having paid a bill from UCSF which delayed his surgery subjecting plaintiff to unnecessary pain. See docket # 45. This filing does not constitute a motion or cross-motion for summary judgment. The court must vacate plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but plaintiff may make use of the documentation contained within the filing within any opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants must re-serve their motion for summary judgment, filed on February 17, 2012, upon plaintiff at his current address at RJ Donovan and must file proof of the re-service within three days;
2. Plaintiff's defective motion for summary judgment, filed at docket # 45, is vacated without prejudice to plaintiff's use of the documentation therein within his opposition to defendants' pending summary judgment motion;
3. In light of the apparently defective initial service of defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff will be granted until April 15, 2012 to file his opposition to the motion; thereafter, defendants will have seven days to file any reply.