IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 12, 2012
JOSE B. ORTIZ, PLAINTIFF,
J. REYNOLDS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 6, 2012, plaintiff filed the following documents: (1) Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; (2) Response to Defendant's Undisputed Statement of Facts; (3) Declaration of Inmate Raymond Houston; and (4) Declaration of Inmate Gary Lasher. Dckt. No. 54. Plaintiff's second, third, and fourth filings appear to be responsive to defendant's August 3, 2012 motion for summary judgment. Dckt. No. 51. However, plaintiff's intentions as to the first document are not as clear.
The first document, entitled "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,"*fn1 addresses some, but not all, of the arguments raised in the motion for summary judgment and was filed with documents responsive to the motion for summary judgment. Thus, it appears that plaintiff has improperly labeled his opposition to the motion for summary judgment as an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, and the court will construe plaintiff's September 6, 2012 "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," as an opposition to the pending summary judgment motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's September 6, 2012 "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," is construed as an opposition to defendant's August 3, 2012 summary judgment motion and defendant's reply, if any, is due fourteen days from the date of this order.