IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 27, 2012
GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,
ALLEN K. SCRIBNER, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION (Doc. 150.) ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW OPPOSITION AND FILE AMENDED OPPOSITION, IF HE SO WISHES THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
George E. Jacobs IV ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's original Complaint, filed on September 18, 2006, against defendants Sgt. J. M. Martinez, C/O German, C/O Northcutt, and Does 1 and 2 for use of excessive physical force, and against defendants Sgt. J. M. Martinez and Does 3, 4, and 6-10 for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. *fn1 (Doc. 1.)
On May 25, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is now pending. (Doc. 121.) On August 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 137.)
On July 25, 2012, Defendants provided Plaintiff with a Rand Warning and requested that Plaintiff be permitted to file a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 150.) Defendants' motion to permit Plaintiff to file a supplemental opposition is now before the Court.
I. DEFENDANT'S MOTION
Defendants have served a Rand Warning upon Plaintiff, which informs Plaintiff of his rights and responsibilities in opposing a motion for summary judgment. Defendants also request 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.
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 five years ago does not suffice. *fn2 On July 10, 2012, the Court re-served the Second Informational Order upon Plaintiff. (Doc. 149.)
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 for Plaintiff be permitted to file further opposition 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 August 9, 2010. L.R. 220. *fn3
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' 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 Defendants' motion for summary judgment of May 25, 2010;
3. If Plaintiff does not file an Amended Opposition in response to this order, his existing opposition will be considered in resolving Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
4. If Plaintiff elects to file an Amended Opposition, Defendants may file a reply pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
IT IS SO ORDERED.