Jorgenson v. Moore et al

Filing 70

ORDER Following Initial Scheduling Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/26/2019. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

PAUL JORGENSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17

Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this action.
The Court held an initial scheduling conference on March 20, 2019. (ECF No. 69).

18

Plaintiff telephonically appeared on his own behalf. Counsel Edward Olsen personally

19

appeared on behalf of defendant United States of America. Counsel Carlos Ambriz

20

telephonically appeared on behalf of defendant Haak. Counsel Thomas Gray telephonically

21

appeared on behalf of defendants Randhawa and Emanuel Medical Center.

22

For the reasons stated on the record at the conference, IT IS ORDERED that:

23

1. Discovery is open only as the following issues:

24
25

a. Plaintiff’s consent at Emanuel Medical Center to the medical procedures
Plaintiff underwent at Emanuel Medical Center.

26

b. The Court’s jurisdiction to hear this matter.

27

c. Exhaustion of administrative remedies as to Plaintiff’s claim against the

28
1

1
2
3
4
5

United States of America.
d. Identification of Doe Defendants.
2. The parties have forty-five days from the date of service of a discovery request to
respond to that request.
3. In the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel

6

Medical Center, these defendants raised the issue of Plaintiff’s consent at Emanuel

7

Medical Center to the medical procedures Plaintiff underwent at Emanuel Medical

8

Center. In each motion to dismiss, this issue is converted to a motion for summary

9

judgment. Plaintiff has until July 12, 2019, to submit a supplemental response

10

(which may include evidence) that addresses only the issue of his consent. If

11

Plaintiff files a supplement, Defendants have until August 16, 2019, to file a reply.

12

4. Defendant United States of America has until April 26, 2019, to file a motion for

13

summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff

14

has until June 21, 2019, to file his response to the motion. Defendant United States

15

of America has until June 28, 2019, to file a reply. Failure to file a motion for

16

summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion by this deadline will result in waiver

17

of the defense. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (providing

18

that the exhaustion question should be decided as early as feasible).

19

5. Plaintiff has until July 12, 2019, to identify Doe Defendants. To add named

20

defendants in place of Doe Defendants, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to

21

amend the complaint or a motion to substitute. Failure to file a motion for leave to

22

amend or a motion to substitute by this deadline may result in dismissal of Doe

23

Defendants.

24

6. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall serve

25

Defendants’ counsel (Mr. Olsen, Mr. Ambriz, and Mr. Gray) with his initial

26

disclosures. As discussed in the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 44), Plaintiff shall

27

provide Defendants’ counsel with “[t]he name and, if known, the address and

28

telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information−along
2

1

with the subjects of that information−that [Plaintiff] may use to support [his] claims

2

or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff

3

shall also provide Defendants with a “copy−or a description by category and

4

location−of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things

5

that [Plaintiff] has in [his] possession, custody, or control and may use to support

6

[his] claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” (Id.)

7

7. A Status Conference is set for September 9, 2019, at 3:00 p.m. At the conference

8

the parties shall be prepared to discuss all outstanding motions, and, if necessary,

9

the setting of a schedule.

10

8. As the Court has converted a portion of the motions to dismiss into motions for

11

summary judgment, pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, the Court hereby

12

notifies Plaintiff of the following rights and requirements for opposing Defendants’

13

motions for summary judgment.

14

NOTICE AND WARNING:

15

Certain defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which

16

they seek to have some of your claims dismissed. A motion for summary

17

judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if

18

granted, end your case as to those claims.

19
20

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

21

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

22

genuine issue of material fact— that is, if there is no real dispute about any

23

fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for

24

summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end

25

your case.

26

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn

27

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead,

28

you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

3

1

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule [56(c)],1

2

that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and

3

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If

4

you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if

5

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted,

6

the claims at issue will be dismissed and there will be no trial on those

7

claims.

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL RULE
REQUIREMENTS

9
10
11

You are responsible for filing all evidentiary documents cited in the

12

opposing papers. Local Rule 260(b). If additional discovery is needed to

13

oppose summary judgment, Local Rule 260(b) requires you to “provide a

14

specification of the particular facts on which discovery is to be had or the

15

issues on which discovery is necessary.” Id. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18

Dated:

March 26, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The substance of Rule 56(e) from the 1998 version, when Rand was decided, has been reorganized and
renumbered with the current version of Rule 56(c).
4