Barnes

Barnes v. Sacramento County

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 20232:21-cv-00323California2,399 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

facts, nor did Plaintiff admit or deny those facts. (See ECF No. 21.) Because Plaintiff did not 22 comply with Rule 206(b), the Court deems Plaintiff to have admitted those facts not disputed by his Complaint or other submissions. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 527 (2006) (“by failing specifically to challenge the facts identified in the defendant’s statement of undisputed facts, [plaintiff] is deemed to have admitted the validity of the facts contained in the [defendant's] statement.”); Brito v. Barr, 2020 WL 4003824, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2020) (deeming 25 defendant’s undisputed facts as admitted after plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 260(b)); see also Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2004).

A pod is an independent housing section in a prison that houses a small number of incarcerated individuals. It will typically encompass multiple rooms, including a day room/dining area in the center and usually a shower or bathroom. II. STANDARD OF LAW Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates no genuine issue of any material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to…

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.