Zuniga

(PC) Soria v. Zuniga

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 30, 20211:18-cv-00635California898 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN JOSEPH SORIA, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00635 NONE JLT ) Plaintiff, ) RAND WARNING TO PLAINTIFF; ORDER ) EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE THE v. ) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RAFAEL ZUNICA, et al., ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO AUGUST 24, 2021 ) Defendants. ) ORDER VACATING THE HEARING ON THE ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT )

The Court notes that the plaintiff has not been advised of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment, as required by Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988) and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, PLAINTIFF STEVEN JOSEPH SORIA, PRO SE is advised1 of the following requirements for opposing the motion for summary judgment made by defendants pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. A motion for summary judgment brought under Rule 56 is a request for judgment on some or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.