UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 21, 2012
DERRAL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE OPPOSITION NUNC PRO TUNC (Doc. 83)
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff Saahdi Coleman ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 70. March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 75; Doc. 76; Doc. 77; Doc. 79. On Mar 26, 2012, Defendants filed a reply. Doc. 82. On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to consider his opposition as filed timely. Doc. 83. On April 16, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition. Doc. 85. On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply. Doc. 86.
On July 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit found that the notice and warning of requirements for opposing a defendant's motion for summary judgment should be issued contemporaneously when a defendant files a motion for summary judgment, as opposed to a year or more in advance. Woods v. Carey, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 2626912, at * 4 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012). In order to address the time delay between providing notice and the filing of Defendants' motion, On August 8, 2012, the Court issued an amended second informational order and provided Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a new opposition. Doc. 87; Doc. 88.
Given that Plaintiff is being provided an additional chance to submit a timely opposition, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion filed on April 12, 2013, and considers Plaintiff's original opposition filed on March 9, 2012, to be timely, should Plaintiff desire to stand on this opposition rather than file a new opposition.
II. Conclusion and Order
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff's motion filed on April 12, 2012, to consider Plaintiff's opposition as timely filed, is GRANTED. Doc. 83.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.