Lester v. Nue

Filing 29

ORDER by Judge William Alsup denying 24 Motion for release of evidence; denying 25 Motion for release of evidence (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHEN DWAYNE LESTER,
Plaintiff,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 10-5365 WHA (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
EVIDENCE; DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE
EVIDENCE; EXTENDING TIME

v.
DEPUTY NUE, DEPUTY TILTON,
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, DOES 11000,

(Docket Nos. 24, 25)

Defendants.
/
Plaintiff’s motions “for release of evidence” (docket numbers 24 and 25) are DENIED

15

because they seek evidence concerning issues that are not raised in defendants’ pending motion

16

to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment. The motions may be renewed following

17

resolution of defendants’ motion, if that motion is denied.

18

As defendants’ motion is based upon plaintiff’s allege failure to exhaust his

19

administrative remedies, defendants were previously ordered to provide plaintiff with copies of

20

all administrative grievances he filed while in the San Francisco County Jail not already

21

provided to him. Defendants have written a letter stating that plaintiff has been in the custody

22

of the County Jail on many occasions pre-dating the matters raised in this case. Provided

23

defendants file a declaration to that effect by a custodian of records within seven days of the

24

date this order is filed, defendants need only provide plaintiff with copies of administrative

25

grievances filed while in the custody of the County of San Francisco after June 3, 2010, when

26

the alleged harm of which plaintiff complains began. Defendants are required to produce

27

plaintiff’s administrative grievances after plaintiff’s transfer to other facilities of the San

28

Francisco County Jail in July 2010 because plaintiff could have filed grievances about the harm

1

to him in June 2010 even after he was transferred to other such facilities. This should not be an

2

undue additional burden to defendants because defendants presumably had to locate and review

3

all administrative grievances filed by plaintiff after June 3, 2010, before arguing that he did not

4

his administrative remedies with respect to the claims raised in this action. Defendants shall

5

provide such evidence to plaintiff within 14 days of the date this order is filed.

6

In light of the foregoing, the deadline for plaintiff to file an opposition to defendants’

7

motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment is extended to and including

8

November 15, 2011. Such opposition shall be deemed as a supplemental to plaintiff’s

9

“response” filed on September 27, 2011 (docket number 28). Defendants shall file a reply brief

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

within 14 days of the date any opposition is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated: October

6 , 2011.

13

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.10\LESTER5365.MOT.wpd

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2