Clofer v. Connick ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TYRONE CLOFER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-6268 DA JOSEPH CONNICK SR., et al. SECTION M (2) ORDER & REASONS Plaintiff Tyrone Clofer, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, moved for summary judgment against all defendants as to their liability.1 The claims against the three defendants properly served thus far have already been dismissed,2 and the other defendants either have not been properly served or have not yet filed responsive pleadings. A motion for summary judgment at this stage is premature. See Sunbelt Sav., FSB v. Montross, 923 F.2d 353, 357, 358 (5th Cir.1991) (holding that summary judgment was premature when discovery was still pending); Kuperman v. ICF Int’l, 2008 WL 647557, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2008) (“Courts are permitted to dismiss [a motion to dismiss] without prejudice if it is filed before any party answers.”); Stewart v. Mod. Am. Recycling Servs., Inc., 2014 WL 68804, at *3 n.2 (E.D. La. Jan. 8, 2014) (holding that summary judgment is premature where defendants have not filed an answer and the parties have not conducted extensive discovery); Lewis v. Cain, 2009 WL 3254478, at *1 (M.D. La. Oct. 9, 2009) (holding that summary judgment is premature where defendants have not been served with the complaint and there was no evidence they were served with the summary-judgment motion); Banks v. The Clarion Ledger, Inc., 2005 WL 3359075, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 9, 2005) (“Plaintiffs’ 1 R. Doc. 47. 2 R. Doc. 71. motion for summary judgment clearly is premature, having been filed prior to any service upon the defendants.”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 47) is DENIED without prejudice. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of November, 2024. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE