Charles Pruitt, Jr. v. Sandra Lake, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas directs pro se plaintiff Charles Pruitt to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment and file a separate statement of disputed facts. The order explains the evidentiary and formatting requirements for opposing summary judgment and warns that failure to comply may result in deemed admissions and possible dismissal without prejudice.

Holdings

1. A nonmoving plaintiff opposing summary judgment may not rely on mere allegations; the plaintiff must support the response with legal arguments and admissible evidence, such as properly executed affidavits, jail records, or other evidence, demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact.
2. Plaintiff must separately file a short and concise statement of material facts, identify whether he agrees or disagrees with each numbered paragraph of defendants' statement, explain any disagreement, and cite the evidence supporting the disputed fact.
3. Failure to timely and properly file a response and statement of disputed facts may result in defendants' factual assertions being deemed admitted and may result in dismissal without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. What materials and procedural filings must a pro se plaintiff submit in response to a motion for summary judgment?
2. What consequences may follow if plaintiff fails to timely and properly respond or controvert defendants' statement of undisputed facts?

Disposition

other