Opinion
1:07-cv-01111-LJO-GSA-PC
2013-09-15
STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE IV, Plaintiff, v. LT. V. J. GONZALEZ, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
(Doc. 56.)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
EITHER:
(1) WITHDRAW HIS EXISTING
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
FILE ONE ALL-INCLUSIVE
AMENDED OPPOSITION, OR
(2) NOTIFY THE COURT HE
INTENDS TO STAND ON HIS
EXISTING OPPOSITION
DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AMENDED OPPOSITION OR NOTIFY
COURT: OCTOBER 30, 2013
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE REPLY
(Doc. 57.)
I. BACKGROUND
Steven Joseph Noble IV ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on July 31, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed on February 24, 2009, against defendant Lieutenant V. J. Gonzalez ("Defendant"), for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 15.)
On March 8, 2012, the court dismissed Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendant, for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 33.)
On May 29, 2013, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. (Doc. 49.) On September 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 54.)
On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his opposition, and Defendant filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition. (Docs. 56, 57.)
II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT OPPOSITION
Plaintiff requests leave to supplement his opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, once he has received further discovery responses from Defendant pursuant to the court's order of August 26, 2013. Plaintiff argues that the expected discovery responses may reveal facts that would preclude summary judgment. Plaintiff also argues that judicial economy would be served if the court stayed this action, or delayed consideration of the motion for summary judgment, until after Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition.
The court's order of August 26, 2013 granted in part Plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered Defendant to make further or amended responses within thirty days. (Doc. 53.)
The Court finds good cause at this juncture to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to withdraw his existing opposition to Defendant's pending motion and file an all-inclusive amended opposition, if he so wishes. The Court will not consider multiple oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options upon receipt of this order. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed opposition or (2) withdraw it and file one, all-inclusive amended opposition. The amended opposition, if any, must be complete in itself and must not refer back to any of the opposition documents Plaintiff filed on September 5, 2013. L.R. 220. Plaintiff shall be granted until October 30, 2013, to withdraw his previously-filed opposition and file an amended opposition. Should Plaintiff require a further extension of time, he should file a motion before the expiration of the deadline.
Local Rule 220 provides, in part: "Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. All changed pleadings shall contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading."
--------
III. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
In light of Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Defendant requests an extension of time to reply to Plaintiff's opposition. Good cause appearing, Defendant's motion shall be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion, filed on September 9, 2013, is GRANTED;IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. On or before October 30, 2013, Plaintiff is required to either:
(1) Withdraw his existing opposition filed on September 5, 2013, and file an all-inclusive amended opposition to Defendant's' motion for summary judgment of May 29, 2013; or3. Defendant's motion for extension of time, filed on September 9, 2013, is GRANTED;
(2) Notify the court in writing that he wishes to stand on his existing opposition of September 5, 2013;
4. If Plaintiff files an amended opposition, Defendant may file a reply to the amended opposition within twenty days of the date the amended opposition is filed;
5. If Plaintiff notifies the court in writing that he wishes to stand on his existing opposition of September 5, 2013, Defendant may file a reply to the existing opposition within twenty days of the date Plaintiff files the written notice.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE