2008-10-01_Jack_Thomas_v_COH_-_Order_Granting_Defendants_Motion_for_Summary_Judgment_and_Remanding_State_Law_Claims

Home

Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 52 Filed 10/01/2008 Page 8 of 17 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (A party cannot "rest on mere allegations or denials of his pleading" in opposing summary judgment). An issue of fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. An issue is material if the resolution of the factual dispute affects the outcome of the claim or defense under substantive law governing the case. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001). When considering the evidence on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all reasonable inferences on behalf of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587. III. ANALYSIS Defendants argue, among other things, that Plaintiff should be precluded from raising new allegations for the first time in his Opposition, and that summary judgment should be granted on Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim because Malate and Kimura are subject to absolute immunity. The court addresses these arguments in turn. A. Allegations Not Included in the Complaint Plaintiff alleges for the first time in his Opposition that Defendants violated his right to privacy by including his birth date and Social Security number 8