Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valentine E. Underwood v. M. Knowles

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 19, 2012

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. KNOWLES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO SUBMIT THREE AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 142.)

I. BACKGROUND

Valentine Underwood ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original Complaint, against defendants Correctional Officer ("C/O") M. Northcutt and C/O S. Martin for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment; and against defendants C/O M. Northcutt, C/O S. Martin, C/O D. Caviness, C/O A. Trujillo, and C/O P. Truitt, ("Defendants") for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.*fn1 The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and on June 15, 2011, this case was reassigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings. (Docs. 4, 97, 102.)

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 17, 2012. (Doc. 122.) On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 127.) On May 18, 2012, Defendants filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 131.)

On September 18, 2012, Plaintiff withdrew his opposition, and on September 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended opposition. (Docs. 138, 139, 141.) On September 28, 2012, Defendants filed a reply to the amended opposition. (Doc. 140.)

On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to allow him to submit three affidavits in support of his amended opposition. (Doc. 142.) Plaintiff's request is now before the Court.

II. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

Plaintiff explains that Defendants claimed, in their reply of September 28, 2012, that Plaintiff failed to submit three affidavits -- of Zimena Underwood, Tracy Underwood, and Joy Haskins -- in support of his amended opposition. Plaintiff asserts that he intended to submit the three affidavits as Exhibits 14-16, and if he inadvertently failed to submit them, he requests the Court to allow submission of the affidavits now.

Plaintiff's request is moot, because the record shows that Plaintiff submitted the three affidavits of Zimena Underwood, Tracy Underwood, and Joy Haskins on September 24, 2012, as Exhibits 14-16 in support of his amended opposition. (Doc. 141 at 63-68 [Exhs. 14-16].) Plaintiff is not required to submit the exhibits again. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request shall be denied as moot.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request, filed on October 15, 2012, for the Court to allow submission of three affidavits in support of Plaintiff's amended opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.