Case Information
*1 Case 2:04-cv-00115-MCE-PAN Document 64 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RODNEI FRAZIER,
Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0115 MCE PAN P vs.
DR. JOHN KOFOED, et al.,
Defendants. ORDER
/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a reply to defendant Kofoed’s motion for summary judgment. Appended as Exhibits A and B to plaintiff’s reply were three separate pages which plaintiff contends contain evidence in support of his opposition to the motion. (February 28, 2006 Reply at 7, 9 & 10.) However, these individual pages do not meet evidentiary requirements such that this court can determine who signed the document and on what date. (Id.) In addition, although these pages are marked with footers at the bottom, i.e. “Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,” and “Declaration of John Kofoed, M.D.,” the pages provided appear to be different from documents filed in support of defendants’ December 21, 2005 motion for summary judgment. (See December 21, 2005 motion at 5-9, 11- 14; compare to February 28, 2006 Reply at 7, 9 & 10.) Moreover, although plaintiff also
1
*2 Case 2:04-cv-00115-MCE-PAN Document 64 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2 included a copy of defendant’s December 21, 2005 separate statement of undisputed facts, many of the references to “SSUF” in the pages provided by plaintiff do not match the numbered statement contained in the statement of undisputed facts filed on December 21, 2005. [1]
In light of this discrepancy in the record, plaintiff will be directed to file copies of the complete documents he referred to as Exhibits A and B in his February 28, 2006 reply. Defendants will be granted ten days to file a response, if any.
The parties are cautioned that this order is not an invitation to revisit arguments pertaining to the underlying motion for summary judgment, which is fully briefed and submitted for decision.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within twenty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file complete copies of the two documents he appended to his February 28, 2006 reply as Exhibits A & B, including the cover page and the signature page of each document.
2. Defendant Kofoed may file a response, if any, within ten days thereafter.
DATED: March 24, 2006.
[001] fraz0115.fb
20
21
22
23
24 [1] For example, in the page provided by plaintiff, Dr. Kofoed allegedly declares that plaintiff’s medical records related to his first examination of plaintiff are attached as Exhibit C. 25 (Pl.’s February 28, 2006 Reply at 9.) In the December 21, 2005 motion for summary judgment, Dr. Kofoed’s declaration is contained within the motion, see p. 11-14, and there is no reference 26 to an Exhibit C, nor is there an Exhibit C appended to that motion.
2