The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW OPPOSITION AND FILE AMENDED OPPOSITION IN LIGHT OF SEPARATELY-ISSUED SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE (Doc. 173.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Alex Marti is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on July 9, 2007, against twenty-two Defendants, on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation under the First Amendment.
On July 29, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 173.) On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition; on April 27, 2012, Defendants filed a reply; and the motion was submitted under Local Rule 230(l).
However, in light of the recent decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012), Plaintiff must be provided with "fair notice" of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment at the time the motion is brought and the notice given in this case some four years prior does not suffice.
By separate order issued on July 10, 2012, the Court provided the requisite notice. (Doc. 256.) The Court shall again provide the requisite notice by separate order entitled "Amended Second Informational Order -- Notice and Warning of Requirements for Opposing Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion," issued concurrently with this order. The Court will not consider multiple oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options upon receipt of the notice and this order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed opposition or (2) withdraw it and file an amended opposition.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, withdraw his opposition and file an amended opposition;
2. 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
3. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended opposition, Defendants' existing reply will not be considered and they may file an amended reply pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...