(PC) Gould v. Smith

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN ERIC GOULD, Case No. 2:18-cv-01981-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 13 v. JUDGMENT AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN RENEE SMITH1, EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Defendant. ECF Nos. 50, 51 18 Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to file and serve an opposition to defendant’s March 8, 2021 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. However, review of defendant’s motion for summary judgment shows that defendant did not provide plaintiff with the proper notice of the requirements—including those imposed by the court’s local rules—for opposing a summary judgment motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he only satisfactory practice to ensure that prisoners receive adequate notice pursuant to Rand and Wyatt is to provide such notice at the time that the relevant motions are filed.”).

27 1 This action proceeds on the second amended complaint’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Renee Smith. See ECF Nos. 34, 40. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case name to Gould v. Smith, 2:18-cv-1981-JAM-JDP.

2 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 50, is denied without prejudice.

4 2. Within fourteen days of this order, defendant shall refile her motion for summary || judgment, which shall include the appropriate Rand notice.

6 3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 51, is denied as moot.

7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case name to Gould v. Smith, 2:18-cv- | 1981-JAM-JDP.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll ( ie — Dated: _ April 5, 2021 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE