(PC) Gould v. Smith

E.D. California

(PC) Gould v. Smith

DecidedApril 5, 2021

Docket2:18-cv-01981

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Gould v. Smith ((PC) Gould v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Gould v. Smith, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN ERIC GOULD, Case No. 2:18-cv-01981-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 13 v. JUDGMENT AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN 14 RENEE SMITH1, EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 50, 51 16 17 18 Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file and serve an opposition to 19 defendant’s March 8, 2021 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. However, review of 20 defendant’s motion for summary judgment shows that defendant did not provide plaintiff with the 21 proper notice of the requirements—including those imposed by the court’s local rules—for 22 opposing a summary judgment motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 23 1998); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he only satisfactory practice to 24 ensure that prisoners receive adequate notice pursuant to Rand and Wyatt is to provide such notice 25 at the time that the relevant motions are filed.”). 26

27 1 This action proceeds on the second amended complaint’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Renee Smith. See ECF Nos. 34, 40. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is 28 directed to amend the case name to Gould v. Smith, 2:18-cv-1981-JAM-JDP. 1 2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 50, is denied without prejudice. 4 2. Within fourteen days of this order, defendant shall refile her motion for summary 5 || judgment, which shall include the appropriate Rand notice. 6 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 51, is denied as moot. 7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case name to Gould v. Smith, 2:18-cv- 8 | 1981-JAM-JDP. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll ( ie — Dated: _ April 5, 2021 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN ERIC GOULD, Case No. 2:18-cv-01981-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 13 v. JUDGMENT AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN 14 RENEE SMITH1, EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 50, 51 16 17 18 Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file and serve an opposition to 19 defendant’s March 8, 2021 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. However, review of 20 defendant’s motion for summary judgment shows that defendant did not provide plaintiff with the 21 proper notice of the requirements—including those imposed by the court’s local rules—for 22 opposing a summary judgment motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 23 1998); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he only satisfactory practice to 24 ensure that prisoners receive adequate notice pursuant to Rand and Wyatt is to provide such notice 25 at the time that the relevant motions are filed.”). 26

27 1 This action proceeds on the second amended complaint’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Renee Smith. See ECF Nos. 34, 40. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is 28 directed to amend the case name to Gould v. Smith, 2:18-cv-1981-JAM-JDP. 1 2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 50, is denied without prejudice. 4 2. Within fourteen days of this order, defendant shall refile her motion for summary 5 || judgment, which shall include the appropriate Rand notice. 6 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 51, is denied as moot. 7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case name to Gould v. Smith, 2:18-cv- 8 | 1981-JAM-JDP. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll ( ie — Dated: _ April 5, 2021 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Gould v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-gould-v-smith-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack