Opinion
No. CIV S-10-1672 KJM EFB PS.
September 15, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On September 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a "Dispute Resolution Motion." Dckt. No. 59. Plaintiff states that he "motions the courts as well as the defense in [its] recognition of the economic burdens faced by this case, we seek means to resolve this matter by: (1) Plaintiff and the Counsel for the defense, (2) ADR Judge, (3) Trial before Jury." Id. Because it is unclear what relief plaintiff seeks in his motion, the motion will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is reminded, however, that he is free to work with defendant's counsel toward settlement of the case, and the parties are also free to participate in any private Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process. Additionally, notwithstanding Local Rule 271(a)(2)(ii), if both plaintiff and defendant so desire, they may file a request that this action be referred to the court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP") by filing a Stipulation and Order reflecting the agreement of all parties to submit the action to the VDRP pursuant to Local Rule 271. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 143; 271(I). Finally, if both parties conclude that a court settlement conference would likely resolve the case, they may contact the clerk to request that one be scheduled.
Plaintiff and defendant's counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 160.
Additionally, on September 13, 2011, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Relief." Dckt. No. 60. Although it is not labeled as such, it appears to be plaintiff's fourth motion for summary judgment in this action. Dckt. No. 22. However, once again, plaintiff's motion does not comply with the requirements set forth in Local Rules 230(b) and 260(a), in that it was not noticed for hearing, does not contain any supporting authority or evidence, and was not accompanied by a Statement of Undisputed Facts. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(b) ("[A]ll motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file with the Clerk a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in support of the motion."); 260(a) ("Each motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be accompanied by a `Statement of Undisputed Facts' that shall enumerate discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon in support of the motion and cite the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer, admission or other document relied upon to establish that fact."). Therefore, plaintiff's motion for relief, Dckt. No. 60, will be denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff also filed motions for summary judgment on October 12, 2010, March 1, 2011, and July 5, 2011, which were denied without prejudice as premature and procedurally improper. Dckt. Nos. 6, 7, 22, 24, 38, 40.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's dispute resolution motion, Dckt. No. 59, is denied without prejudice; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for relief, Dckt. No. 60, is also denied without prejudice.