(PC) Reed v. Prado
This text of (PC) Reed v. Prado ((PC) Reed v. Prado) 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.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZAYA REED, No. 2:23-cv-1101 KJM CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 OFFICER PRADO, et al. , 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Defendants’ motion 18 for summary judgment is pending. (ECF No. 18.) The Court has reviewed the parties’ filings 19 and finds that further briefing is required. 20 Missing Documents 21 First, although defendants refer to a declaration by defendant Whitney (ECF No. 18-2 at 22 3-4) (“Whitney declaration”), no declaration by defendant Whitney was filed with the motion for 23 summary judgment. In addition, the Whitney declaration is not listed on the certificate of service 24 of documents that were served on plaintiff. (ECF No. 18-12 at 2.) Therefore, defendants must 25 file and serve the Whitney declaration. In addition, the declaration of Toni Taylor (“Taylor 26 declaration”) refers to an Exhibit A (strip search affidavit), but no Exhibit A was appended to the 27 Taylor declaration. (ECF No. 18-7.) Although the Taylor declaration is listed on the certificate 28 of service (ECF No. 18-12 at 2), it is unclear whether Exhibit A was also served on plaintiff given 1 | that it was not included with the Taylor declaration filed with the Court. Defendants shall file and 2 || serve on plaintiff the Whitney declaration and the Taylor declaration with Exhibit A, and file a 3 || certificate of service of these documents. Because plaintiff did not have benefit of these 4 || documents when she filed her opposition, plaintiff is permitted an opportunity to respond to these 5 || newly filed documents. Plaintiff is not required to file a response, but if plaintiff elects to, 6 || plaintiff must do so within ten days from the date defendants serve the Whitney declaration and 7 || the Taylor declaration with Exhibit A on plaintiff. Any response by plaintiff must be limited to 8 | the Whitney declaration and the Taylor declaration with Exhibit A. If plaintiff elects to file a 9 || response limited to the Whitney declaration and the Taylor declaration with Exhibit A, defendants 10 || may file a reply limited to responding to plaintiffs response. 11 || Conclusion 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Within ten days from the date of this order, defendants shall file and serve on plaintiff 14 || the Whitney declaration and the Taylor declaration with Exhibit A, and shall also file a certificate 15 || of service of these documents. 16 2. Ten days after defendants serve on plaintiff the Whitney declaration and Taylor 17 || declaration with Exhibit A, plaintiff may file a response limited to those documents. 18 3. If plaintiff files a response to the Whitney declaration and Taylor declaration with 19 | Exhibit A, within ten days, defendants may file a reply limited to plaintiffs response. 20 21 | Dated: March 7, 2025 A aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 || /1/reed1101.f 27 28
1 Rand Notice to Plaintiff 2 This notice is provided to ensure that you, a pro se prisoner plaintiff, “have fair, timely and adequate notice 3 of what is required” to oppose a motion for summary judgment. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); 4 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998). The court requires that you be provided with this notice 5 regarding the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 Procedure. 7 When a defendant moves for summary judgment, the defendant is requesting that the court grant judgment 8 in defendant’s favor without a trial. If there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, 9 the defendant who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case 10 against that defendant. A motion for summary judgment will set forth the facts that the defendant asserts are not 11 reasonably subject to dispute and that entitle the defendant to judgment. 12 To oppose a motion for summary judgment, you must show proof of your claims.1 To do this, you may 13 refer to specific statements made in your complaint if you signed your complaint under penalty of perjury and if your 14 complaint shows that you have personal knowledge of the matters stated. You may also submit declarations setting 15 forth the facts that you believe prove your claims, as long as the person who signs the declaration has personal 16 knowledge of the facts stated. You may also submit all or part of deposition transcripts, answers to interrogatories, 17 admissions, and other authenticated documents. For each of the facts listed in the defendant’s Statement of 18 Undisputed Facts, you must admit the facts that are undisputed, and deny the facts that are disputed. If you deny a 19 fact, you must cite to the proof that you rely on to support your denial. See L.R. 260(b). If you fail to contradict the 20 defendant’s evidence with your own evidence, the court may accept the defendant’s evidence as the truth and grant 21 the motion. 22 The court will consider a request to postpone consideration of the defendant’s motion if you submit a 23 declaration showing that for a specific reason you cannot present such facts in your opposition. If you do not respond 24 to the motion, the court may consider your failure to act as a waiver of your opposition. See L.R. 230(l). 25 If the court grants the defendant’s motion, whether opposed or unopposed, judgment will be entered for that 26 defendant without a trial and the case will be closed as to that defendant.
27 1 If the motion for summary judgment concerns the exhaustion of administrative remedies, you must submit proof of specific facts regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 28 1008 (9th Cir. 2012); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Reed v. Prado, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-reed-v-prado-caed-2025.