Opinion
22-cv-574-jdp
05-16-2023
KAREEN HAYES, Plaintiff, v. DEP'T OF CORR., Defendant.
ORDER
JAMES D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Kareen Hayes has filed a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 32, which I will deny without prejudice for the following reasons. Hayes's contentions are too conclusory to warrant summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7 (b)(1)(B) (a motion must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order”). Hayes cites several exhibits to support his contentions, but the court will not search these exhibits for information that could warrant summary judgment and develop Hayes's argument for him. Hayes must explain how his evidence shows that there “is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Similarly, Hayes's proposed findings of fact are deficient because he fails to clearly identify the undisputed facts that show that he is entitled to summary judgment. Hayes is correct that I can treat his amended complaint as a declaration, but this does not relieve him of his obligation to submit adequate arguments and proposed findings of fact. Another problem with Hayes's motion is that he failed to sign it. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). Hayes is advised to review the court's scheduling order, see Dkt. 30 at 6-8, for more information about how to file a motion for summary judgment. Also, because the dispositive motions deadline is November 17, 2023, Hayes may wish to conduct further discovery before moving for summary judgment.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Kareen Hayes's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 32, is DENIED without prejudice.
2. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this order.