O'Keefe v. Cate
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/24/2017 DENYING 283 Motion for the Appointment of Counsel and ORDERING Defendants to file, within 30 days of the date of this order, a supplemental summary judgment motion, as discussed in this order. (Henshaw, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P
JERRY BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 29, 2017, the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller granted in part
and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 282.) Judge Mueller
denied defendants’ summary judgment motion as to plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against
defendants Sirkin, Howlin, Wynn and Deputy Director of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Statewide Mental Health Program. (Id.)
Judge Mueller referred this matter back to the undersigned for further proceedings which
may include: a settlement conference; a further motion with specified briefing for summary
judgment; or an evidentiary hearing on the merits of plaintiff’s claim for prospective injunctive
relief. (Id. at 10.)
The undersigned has determined that a further motion for summary judgment is
appropriate. In her order, Judge Mueller found that the parties had not fully briefed the standards
applicable to plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacities.
(Id. at 7-8.) Judge Mueller referred this matter back to the undersigned for further proceedings on
that issue. (Id. at 8.)
Accordingly, within thirty days of the date of this order, defendants shall file a
supplemental summary judgment motion. In particular, defendants shall address the following
issues: 1) are any defendants capable of responding to an order granting plaintiff’s request for
injunctive relief; and 2) do plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief attack a state policy or procedure
on federal grounds.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 283.) The
undersigned has denied plaintiff’s previous motions for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 199,
208, 233, 240, 250.) For the reasons stated in those orders, plaintiff’s pending motion for
appointment of counsel is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 283) is denied;
2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendants shall file a supplemental
summary judgment motion, as discussed above. Thereafter, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of this court will apply as to the timely filing of any opposition and reply
Dated: October 24, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?