Garcia v. City of Santa Clara et al
Filing
45
SCHEDULING ORDER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/29/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
DANIEL C. GARCIA,
9
Plaintiff,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
No. C 10-2424 SI (pr)
SCHEDULING ORDER
v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA; et al.,
12
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On November 1, 2011, defendant Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (erroneously sued as
Marriott International, Inc., dba Marriott Hotel) (collectively "Marriott"), filed a motion to
dismiss. On November 21, 2011, Marriott filed a request to continue the hearing on its motion
to dismiss because the motion had not been properly served on plaintiff.
Upon due
consideration, the request for a continuance is DENIED as unnecessary. (Docket # 42.) Due
to the plaintiff's incarceration, an oral hearing will not be held on the motion to dismiss.
The court now sets the following briefing schedule on Marriott's motion to dismiss: No
later than December 23, 2011, plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition
to the motion to dismiss. No later than January 9, 2012, Marriott must file and serve its reply
brief, if any. Once the reply deadline passes, the motion will be deemed submitted on the papers
and the court will rule on it in due course.
The court provides the following general information about unrepresented prisoner
litigation because defendants are represented by private counsel who may be unfamiliar with
prisoner civil litigation procedures before the undersigned. First, the court usually puts a
briefing schedule for dispositive motions in the order of service in a prisoner civil rights case.
2
Past experience has shown that prisoner cases without any deadlines languish without any
3
progress. The court will allow time for needed discovery but generally tries to keep the cases
4
moving toward resolution by motion, trial or settlement. Second, the motions (including
5
dispositive motions) in prisoner cases are deemed submitted on the papers and no hearing is
6
held unless the court orders otherwise. No hearing date needs to be included on the moving
7
papers. Third, due to limits on access to computers, scanners and email in prisons and jails,
8
paper copies of all filings must be sent by and to plaintiff. That is, plaintiff must mail a paper
9
copy of every filing to defense counsel, and defense counsel must mail a paper copy of every
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
filing to plaintiff. Fourth, there is what is known as the "prisoner mail-box rule" which provides
11
that a document filed by a prisoner is deemed filed when he gives it to prison officials to mail
12
to the court rather than when it is actually stamped "filed" at the courthouse. See Douglas v.
13
Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2009). Fifth, due to the difficulties of sending and
14
receiving mail while in custody, as well as the limits on a prisoner's access to the law library, the
15
court sets more generous briefing schedules than would otherwise exist in a civil action. Sixth,
16
the case number ends with "(pr)" and that is part of the case number that should appear on all
17
filings. Seventh, letters to the court are discouraged – if a party wants action from the court, the
18
party should file a motion. Finally, because defendants are represented by two different counsel,
19
plaintiff must serve a copy of every filing on each of those two attorneys and each defense
20
counsel must serve a copy of every filing on the other defense counsel as well as on plaintiff.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2011
_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?