(PS) Oliver v. Placer County Superior Court

Opinion

DAVID JEROME OLIVER, SR, et al., No. 2:20-cv-1203 JAM DB PS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER et al., Defendants. Plaintiff David Jerome Oliver Sr. is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 16, 2020, and September 17, 2020, plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 3 & 5.) Summary judgment, however, should be entered after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). Here, when plaintiff filed the motions for summary judgment, the screening of plaintiff’s amended complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 were still pending before the court. Moreover, on November 23, 2020, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Those findings and recommendations are pending before the assigned District Judge. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs June 16, 2020 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 3) and September 17, 2020 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 5) are denied without prejudice to renewal as premature. ! Dated: February 19, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.pro se\oliver1203.msj.den.ord

| | In the event that the assigned District Judge does not adopt the November 23, 2020 findings and recommendations in full plaintiff may file a renewed motion for summary judgment at the appropriate time.