Hilson v. Director of Corrections

Filing 50

ORDER OF SERVICE re 1 Complaint filed by Rasheed Hilson, Sr.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 3/17/15. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RASHEED HILSON,

Case No. 12-cv-06016-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF SERVICE

9
10

STARK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 49

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

14

1983. This action alleges that defendants, doctors and dentists at North Kern State Prison

15

(“NKSP”) and Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), failed to properly treat plaintiff’s dental

16

problems. The Court previously dismissed the served defendants from NKSP. Docket No. 48.

17

The Court noted that defendants Scanlon, Wittenberg, Edwards, Knorton and Johnson who were

18

involved with treatment at SVSP had not been served and defendants Stark and McQuirter from

19

NKSP had not been served. Plaintiff was ordered to provide additional information so the United

20

States Marshal can serve these defendants.

21

Plaintiff has provided the address for SVSP and notes that he is no longer at the institution

22

and it is difficult for him to obtain information. Court staff contacted SVSP and contact

23

information was provided for Scanlon and Norton (not Knorton) who can be served at the facility.

24

Confidential addresses were provided for Wittenberg and Johnson. Court staff was unable to

25

obtain information for Edwards and plaintiff provided no information for Stark or McQuirter.

26

Therefore, defendants Edwards, Stark, and McQuirter are dismissed from this action pursuant to

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Service is ordered on Scanlon and Norton at SVSP. By concurrent order,

28

the Court will order service under seal to the confidential addresses for Wittenberg and Johnson.

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

1.

The motion for service (Docket No. 49) is GRANTED. Defendants Edwards,

Stark, and McQuirter are DISMISSED from this action.
2.

The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

5

prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this order on the

6

following defendants: Dr. K Norton and Dr. D. Scanlon at Salinas Valley State Prison

7
8
9

3.

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:
a.

No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendant 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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the

12

events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

13

judgment, he shall so inform the court prior to the date his summary judgment motion is due. All

14

papers filed with the court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff.

15

b.

At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendant shall also serve, on a

16

separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

17

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

18

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and Wyatt notices must be

19

given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed,

20

not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement).

21

c.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with

22

the court and served upon defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served

23

upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is

24

provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc),

25

and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

26
27

If defendant files a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust
his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take

28
2

1

note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided

2

to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).
d.

3
4

days after the opposition is served upon him.
e.

5
6
7

If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than fifteen

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.
4.

All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendant, or

8

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to

9

defendants or defendants’ counsel.
5.
Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

parties may conduct discovery.
6.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

13

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

14

Change of Address.” He also must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

15

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

16
17
18
19
20

Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 17, 2015
______________________________________
James Donato
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed.

3

A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if

4

granted, end your case.

5

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment.

6

Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--

7

that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party

8

who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your

9

case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly
supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to

12

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts

13

shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of

14

material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment,

15

if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be

16

dismissed and there will be no trial.

17
18
19
20

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)
If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking
to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.
You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did

21

exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations

22

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents

23

accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other

24

sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions.

25
26

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it is granted,
your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

27
28
4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RASHEED HILSON,

Case No. 12-cv-06016-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

STARK, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on 3/17/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Rasheed Hilson ID: G-37110
Corcoran California State Prison 3A-04-142 Low
P.O. Box 3461
Corcoran, CA 93212

20
21

Dated: 3/17/2015

22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
5