(PC) Kern v. Ha

Opinion

JAMES KERN, No. 2:24-cv-0736 DJC CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEPUTY HA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on claims arising under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against defendant Ha. On July 9, 2025, plaintiff filed a second motion for summary judgment. As plaintiff was informed in findings and recommendations concerning the first motion, summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there “is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be disputed must support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Plaintiff fails to point to anything in the record in support of his motion for summary judgment. ] As the motion does not comply with the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court will recommend that it be denied. The second motion, like the first, is frivolous. If plaintiff continues to file frivolous motions the court may impose sanctions which could include a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: July 14, 2025 / ae □□ / a Ly a CAROLYN K DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | > kern0736.msj(2)