Afamasaga v. Allen et al

Filing 30

ORDER REOPENING CASE AND LIFTING STAY. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/16/07. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2007)

Download PDF
Afamasaga v. Allen et al Doc. 30 Case 3:04-cv-04779-WHA Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vs. Officer TIMOTHY ALLEN; Officer ROBERT ROBERTS; and CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants. / AUKUSITINO AFAMASAGA, JR., Plaintiff, No. C 04-4779 WHA (PR) ORDER REOPENING CASE AND LIFTING STAY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a former inmate of the Contra Costa Jail. He contends that the two remaining defendants, officers Allen and Roberts, beat him in the course of arresting him. The case was stayed until completion of plaintiff's criminal case, as he was representing himself there and wished to direct his time and efforts to it. Plaintiff has now informed the Court that he was convicted, his case is now on appeal, and that he expects to have counsel appointed. He moves to lift the stay. The motion to lift the stay (document number 28 on the docket) is GRANTED. The clerk shall reopen this case. The stay is LIFTED. 1. In order to expedite resolution of this case, the court orders as follows: a. No later than sixty days from the date of entry of this order, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:04-cv-04779-WHA Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 judgment, they shall so inform the court prior to the date their summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff. b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date of service of the motion. If defendants file a motion for summary judgement, plaintiff should note the warnings previously provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), plaintiff should note of the warning headed "NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)," which was provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen days after the date of service of the opposition. d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed "Notice of Change of Address." Documents intended for filing in this case should be sent to the clerk, not to the undersigned. Plaintiff also must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 16 , 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.04\AFAMASAGA779.sched ord.wpd 2

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?