1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETE REYNA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01202-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RE-FILING

14 KINGS COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL, et al., (ECF No. 22) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Pete Reyna (“Plaintiff”) is a former pretrial detainee, currently a state prisoner, 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Siddiqi1 for 20 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment arising out of the delay in Plaintiff’s medical care. 21 Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds 22 that none of Plaintiff’s claims are supported by competent evidence and all of the care Plaintiff 23 received from Defendant was appropriate and within the standard of care, filed April 17, 2020. 24 (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to respond to the motion, but the Court 25 finds a response unnecessary, as discussed below. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 26 230(l). 27

28 1 Erroneously sued as Defendant “Sadiki.” 1 Upon review of the filing, the Court notes that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 2 was not accompanied by the notice and warning required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th 3 Cir. 2012), Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 4 409 (9th Cir. 1988). Additionally, it does not appear that Defendant included a “Statement of 5 Undisputed Facts,” as required by Local Rule 260(a). 6 Accordingly, Defendant Siddiqi’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 22), is 7 HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing in compliance with Rand v. Rowland and the 8 Court’s Local Rules. 9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 Dated: April 21, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28