Fulford v. Griffith, 16-cv-00770-MEJ. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170522665
Visitors: 29
Filed: May 19, 2017
Latest Update: May 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH RAND REQUIREMENT; ORDERING DEFENDANT TO FILE AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE Re: Dkt. No. 31 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at California Medical Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 30, 2017, Defendant filed a summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the Court order Defendan
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH RAND REQUIREMENT; ORDERING DEFENDANT TO FILE AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE Re: Dkt. No. 31 MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at California Medical Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 30, 2017, Defendant filed a summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the Court order Defendant..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPLY WITH RAND REQUIREMENT; ORDERING DEFENDANT TO FILE AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Re: Dkt. No. 31
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at California Medical Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2017, Defendant filed a summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the Court order Defendant to comply with the Rand notice requirement.1 Dkt. No. 31. Defendant acknowledges that he failed to serve a Rand notice concurrently with the summary judgment motion, and states that the failure was an inadvertent error. Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff's motion is therefore GRANTED.
By May 22, 2017, Defendant shall file an amended summary judgment motion. Plaintiff's opposition must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the date the amended motion is filed. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. This order terminates
This order terminates Docket No. 31.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. A motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that a plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).
Source: Leagle
