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.

Ess'nn Aubert v. Hector Robles

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


July 26, 2012

ESS'NN AUBERT,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HECTOR ROBLES,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION (Doc. 34.) ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW OPPOSITION AND FILE AMENDED OPPOSITION, IF HE SO WISHES THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Ess'nn Aubert ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds with Plaintiff's original Complaint filed on April 1, 2010, against defendant Hector Robles ("Defendant") for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.) On February 9, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which is now pending. (Doc. 26.) On March 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition, and on March 9, 2012, Defendant filed a reply. (Docs. 27, 31.)

On July 25, 2012, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a Rand Warning and requested that Plaintiff be permitted to file a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34.) Defendant's motion is now before the Court.

I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION

Defendant has served a Rand Warning upon Plaintiff, which informs Plaintiff of his rights and responsibilities in opposing a motion for summary judgment. Defendant also requests that in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912, *1 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012), Plaintiff be permitted to file a supplemental briefing in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment in this action.

II. DISCUSSION

In Woods, the Ninth Circuit required that a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, such as Plaintiff, be provided with "fair notice" of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment at the time the motion is brought. Woods, 2012 WL 2626912 at *5. Thus, the notice given by the Court in this case more than a year ago does not suffice. *fn1 On July 10, 2012, the Court re-served the Second Informational Order upon Plaintiff. (Doc. 33.)

The Court finds good cause at this juncture to open a thirty-day time period for Plaintiff to file further opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, if he so wishes. Therefore, Defendant's motion shall be granted. The Court will not consider multiple oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options upon receipt of this order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed opposition or (2) withdraw it and file an Amended Opposition. The Amended Opposition, if any, must be complete in itself and must not refer back to any of the opposition documents Plaintiff filed on March 2, 2012. L.R. 220. *fn2

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion to allow further briefing by Plaintiff is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, withdraw his opposition and file an Amended Opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment of February 9. 2012;

3. If Plaintiff does not file an Amended Opposition in response to this order, his existing opposition will be considered in resolving Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

4. If Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Opposition, Defendant may file a reply pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.