Huerta v. Nielsen

Opinion

DAVID HUERTA, Case No.: 18cv1640-MMA (LL)

Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF v. COURT TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION BRIEF; NIELSEN, et al.,

Defendants. [Doc. No. 38-1]

VACATING MOTION HEARING Plaintiff David Huerta is a Seized Property Specialist with United States Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. He brings this action pro se pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, which protects federal employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisor racially discriminated and retaliated against him. See Doc. No. 1. The government moves for summary judgment as to all claims. See Doc. No. 33. The government’s motion is currently set for hearing on April 27, 2020. As such, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to the motion was due for filing on or before April 13, 2020. See CIVLR 7.1.e.2. To date, the Court has not received any submission from Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff served the government with an opposition brief, which the government has attached as an exhibit to its reply brief. See Doc. No. 38-1. The proof of service accompanying Plaintiff's opposition brief indicates that he a copy of the brief to the Clerk of Court via U.S. Mail. See id. at 13. A summary judgment motion must be decided on the merits, and it “must be denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the absence of triable issues.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). A substantive response from Plaintiff will assist the Court in performing its duty. Accordingly, in consideration of Plaintiff's pro se status and what appears to be a good faith attempt to timely submit his opposition brief, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's opposition brief, Doc. No. 38-1, nunc pro tunc to April 7, 2020. The matter is now fully briefed. The Court takes the government’s motion under submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). The Court VACATES the previously scheduled motion hearing. No appearances are required. The Court will issue a written ruling in due course. } DATED: April 20, 2020 = Vt whl = ‘he HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge