Opinion
Case No. 1:18-cv-00311-LJO-EPG (PC)
01-07-2019
KAREEM J. HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. J. BURNS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND PLAINTIFF'S DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 19, 21)
Kareem J. Howell ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this civil rights action against D. Lopez, J. Burns, and J. Holland ("Defendants"), correctional officers at California State Prison - Corcoran, on March 5, 2018. (ECF No 1). This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's claims of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant D. Lopez, of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants D. Lopez and J. Burns, and of interference with the mail and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendant J. Holland. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12.)
On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19). On December 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed an application for a thirty-day extension of time to submit an exhibit to his summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff states that exhibit A was intentionally removed from his motion during printing by the prison law library.
On December 27, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for a twenty-day extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 22), which the Court granted, (ECF No. 23).
Local Rule 260(a) requires that "[e]ach 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."
The Court has reviewed the motion for summary judgment. While Plaintiff did submit declarations and evidence, Plaintiff failed to file a "Statement of Undisputed Facts." Moreover, based on the facts of this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion is premature because discovery has not yet opened.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing the motion after discovery has opened, and in compliance with the court's local rules; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to amend his motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot.
Dated: January 7 , 2019
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE