(PC) Williams v. Beer et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN W. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG (PC)
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REGARDING HIS
OPPOSITION BRIEF FILINGS
(ECF Nos. 174, 175, 177)
Plaintiff John Williams is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now before the Court are various filings by Plaintiff filed on February 11, 2026. (ECF
Nos. 174, 175, 177). They generally concern Plaintiff’s opposition brief filings relating to
Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies before filing his complaint. (ECF No. 175; see ECF No. 148).
As explained in the Court’s January 28, 2026 order, Defendants failed to file their
statement of undisputed facts with their summary judgment motion, so the Court gave them an
extension to do so. Additionally, the Court gave Plaintiff an extension of time to file a
superseding opposition (including any exhibits), in part based on Defendants’ representation that
Plaintiff served documents on them that he did not file with the Court. (ECF No. 168).
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 178 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff now “move[s] to clarify” the record, generally indicating that he believes he filed
all his documents on the record, but nonetheless “mov[ing] to reserve the opposition [brief filings
opposing Defendants’ summary judgment motion.]” (ECF No. 175, pp. 2-3). Plaintiff has
concurrently filed a document regarding the disputed facts at issue (ECF No. 174) and his
opposition briefing (ECF No. 177) to the summary judgment motion.
Upon consideration, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s motion regarding his opposition brief filings is granted to the extent that the
Court acknowledges his statement that he believes he filed all his pertinent documents
earlier on the docket and will grant him permission, consistent with its prior order
allowing a superseding opposition, to file the opposition briefing he has concurrently
filed on the record. (ECF No. 175).
2. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks any additional relief, his motion is denied. (ECF No.
175).
3. Plaintiff’s opposition filings at ECF Nos. 174 and 177 have superseded his prior
opposition briefing at ECF No. 155.
4. Defendants’ deadline to file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment
remains set at March 23, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 12, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:21-cv-00155-KES-EPG Document 178 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 2