Norwood v. Cate

Full title: GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 2, 2012

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00330-AWI-GBC PC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00330-AWI-GBC PC

08-02-2012

GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

(Doc. 71)

Plaintiff Gregory Lynn Norwood ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 10. The Court screened the complaint and found that Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on August 14, 2009, stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Kenneth Clark, K. Allison, T. P. Wan, J. Reynoso and W. J. Sullivan, stemming from their involvement with the prison's race-based lockdowns which deprived Plaintiff of outdoor exercise. Doc. 11; Doc. 15; Doc. 17; Doc. 19; Doc. 20.

On August 1, 2012, the Court issued findings and recommendations, recommending granting Defendants' motion for summary judgement on the grounds of qualified immunity. Doc. 70. In the Findings and Recommendations, the Court stated:

The recent decision in Woods v. Carey, 2012 WL 2626912, finds that in meeting the "fair notice" requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment, such notice must be given at the time the motion is brought "unless it is clear from the record that there are no facts that would permit the inmate to prevail." Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912, at *5-6 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012). In this instance, Plaintiff has more than adequately met the requirements for opposing the motion for summary judgement and it is clear from the record that no additional facts
would change the outcome of the case. See Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912, at *6 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012).

Doc. 70 at 1 n1. On August 1, 2012, Defendants filed a request for supplemental briefing to comply with Woods v. Carey. Given that the Court already addressed the matter in its Findings and Recommendations filed August 1, 2012, the Court denies Defendants' request as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE