IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 23, 2012
MONTE L. HANEY,
A. NANGALAMA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' request for clarification of the court's June 26, 2012, order and plaintiff's opposition thereto.
The court's June 26, 2012, order addressed several motions which were pending. Among those addressed, the court granted plaintiff additional time to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment was filed prior to the court addressing plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. That motion has been granted, and this case now proceeds on plaintiff's amended complaint. Defendants indicate that the motion adequately addresses plaintiff's allegations, but asks for clarification as to whether the court requires the motion for summary judgment to be re-filed.
Plaintiff opposes defendants' request for clarification and has filed a motion to strike the request (Doc. 57). In addition, plaintiff informs the court that discovery has been completed, and he has received the responses to his interrogatories.
The court does find it necessary for the defendants to re-file their motion for summary judgment. The current motion was filed in response to plaintiff's original complaint, and this case now proceeds on the amended complaint. The motion therefore addresses an inoperable pleading. In addition, the defendants acknowledge the lack of proper notice the Ninth Circuit has now informed the court is necessary in prisoner cases. Thus, the court finds the proper remedy is for the defendants to file a new motion for summary judgment with the proper notice given pursuant to Woods v. Carey, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012). Given this direction, the court finds no status conference necessary. Defendants may simply file a new motion for summary judgment addressing the amended complaint and providing plaintiff with the proper notice.
Defendants will have 30 days from the date of this order to file a new motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff will then have 21 days from the date of service of the motion to file an opposition to the new motion for summary judgment. See Local Rule 230(l).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 41) is disregarded as addressing an inoperable complaint;
2. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 52) for leave to file additional responses to the disregarded motion is denied as unnecessary;
3. Defendants may file a new motion for summary judgment within 30 days of the date of this order;
4. Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 57) is denied; and
5. Defendants' request for status conference is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.