Opinion
No. CIV S-06-2381 MCE CKD P
02-15-2012
STEVEN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DIAL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On February 10, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion arguing that he did not receive fair notice of summary judgment procedures pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 1998) and seeking instructions "pertaining to . . . Rand notice." Specifically, plaintiff complains that he was not advised of certain California Rules of Court and aspects of discovery procedure. However, by order issued August 13, 2008, plaintiff received "fair notice" of the "requirements and consequences of Rule 56"of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as required by Rand. (Dkt. No. 32).
Because plaintiff has been adequately advised under Rand, his motion will be denied. Moreover, as there are three pending dispositive motions in this action (Dkt. Nos. 123, 130, and 141), plaintiff is strongly advised against filing additional frivolous motions while the court is engaged in reviewing the substantive issues in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's motion for instructions pertaining to the Fair Notice Doctrine of the Rand Notice (Dkt. No. 158) is denied.
_______________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE