Guevara v. Ralls

Full title: AMILCAR GUEVARA, Plaintiff, v. A. RALLS, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 18, 2012

2:09-cv-1132 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2012)

Opinion

AMILCAR GUEVARA, Plaintiff, v. A. RALLS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:09-cv-1132 KJM KJN P. United States District Court, E.D. California. September 18, 2012.

          ORDER

          KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On September 10, 2012, plaintiff advised the court that he wished to reopen the September 24, 2010 motion for summary judgment in light of Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012).

         In light of Woods, the March 8, 2012 findings and recommendations and the March 29, 2012 order are vacated, in part, only as to the rulings on defendants' September 24, 2010 motion for summary judgment. Defendants' September 10, 2010 motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to renewal. Defendants Ramirez, Scruggs, and Macarvel shall re-file the motion for summary judgment within thirty days from the date of this order. Defendants must contemporaneously serve with the motion, but in a separate document, a copy of the attached notice. See Woods, 684 F.3d at 935; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998). Briefing on the motion is governed by Local Rule 230(l).

         As explained in the August 22, 2012 order, the reopening of the motion for summary judgment requires the court to vacate the pretrial conference, trial confirmation hearing, and jury trial dates to allow time for briefing and resolution of the re-filed motion. The court will issue a revised scheduling order once the motion is resolved.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. The March 8, 2012 findings and recommendations and the September 24, 2012 order (dkt. nos. 128, 129) are vacated, in part, only as to the rulings on defendants' September 24, 2010 motion for summary judgment;

         2. Defendants' September 24, 2010 motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 85), is denied without prejudice;

         3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, defendants Ramirez, Scruggs, and Macarvel shall re-file the motion for summary judgment, accompanied by the attached notice;

         4. The May 1, 2012 further scheduling order (dkt. no. 130) is vacated; and

         5. The November 1, 2012 trial confirmation hearing, and the December 10, 2012 jury trial, set before the undersigned, are vacated.