Lopez v. Vindiola et al

Filing 16

ORDER REGARDING UNSERVED DEFENDANT AND EXTENDING DEADLINES (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/2/2010: # 1 Envelope) (tf, COURT STAFF).

Lopez v. Vindiola et al

Doc. 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. A. VINDIOLA, correctional officer; S. RODRIGUEZ, correctional officer, Defendants. /

No. C 09-3869 SI (pr) ORDER REGARDING UNSERVED DEFENDANT AND EXTENDING DEADLINES

There is a service of process problem in this action. The court ordered service of process on the defendants Vindiola and Rodriguez at Salinas Valley State Prison, where plaintiff had identified them as working. Defendant Vindiola has appeared in this action, but defendant Rodriguez has not. The Marshal's representative has informed the court via the process receipt and return form (docket # 15) that he could not locate defendant Rodriguez to serve process on him/her with the information provided. The Marshal's representative's notes state that someone at Salinas Valley told him that S. Rodriguez had moved to Kern Valley State Prison, but someone at Kern Valley State Prison told him that the reference was probably to Stephanie Rodriguez, and that she did not work at Kern Valley. No later than November 5, 2010, plaintiff must provide a current location at which defendant S. Rodriguez can be found to be served with process. Plaintiff may, for example, write to the Salinas Valley litigation coordinator, the Salinas Valley personnel office, and the CDCR's personnel office to attempt to learn the current whereabouts of this defendant as well as his/her full name. If plaintiff does not provide information so that another attempt at service of process can be made, the unserved defendant will be dismissed without prejudice.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant Vindiola filed an ex parte request for a ninety-day extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Upon due consideration of the request and the accompanying declaration of attorney Damon McClain, the court GRANTS the request. (Docket # 12.) The court now sets the following new briefing schedule for dispositive motions, which extends the deadlines longer than defendant requested so that there will be time afforded to find the unserved defendant: 1. Defendants must file and serve their dispositive motion no later than

December 10, 2010. 2. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the dispositive

motion no later than January 14, 2011. 3. Defendants must file and serve their reply brief (if any) no later than

January 28, 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2010 _______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2