James v. Oakland Police Department et al

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING REQUEST FOR DEFAULT; SETTING SCHEDULE 69 71 . The remaining doctor-defendants must file and serve their dispositive motion no later than December 11, 2015. Plaintiff must file and serve o n defense counsel his opposition to the dispositive motion no later than January 8, 2016. Defendants must file and serve their reply brief (if any) no later than January 22, 2016. Plaintiff and the law enforcement defendants must file case management statements no later than November 20, 2015. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/30/2015) Modified on 10/30/2015 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DENNIS LAMAR JAMES,

Case No. 13-cv-00011-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR DEFAULT; SETTING
SCHEDULE
RE: DKT. NOS. 69, 71

12
13

A.

Motion For Reconsideration

14

Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the September 28, 2015 order granting summary

15

judgment in favor of Terrence Liu. Dkt. No. 71. He asserts that he wants to do discovery and that

16

his mental health and housing preclude effective litigation.

17

A party may move to alter or amend a judgment in a motion filed no later than 28 days

18

after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "'should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless

20

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is

21

an intervening change in the law."' McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)

22

(citation omitted) (en banc).

23

Plaintiff argues in his motion for reconsideration that Dr. Liu’s motion for summary

24

judgment should have been denied as premature because plaintiff “had plans to request further

25

discovery and interrogatories.” Dkt. No. 71. However, as the court explained in the order

26

granting summary judgment, this sort of generalized statement about one’s intent to do discovery

27

is insufficient to require a postponement of the summary judgment motion. See Dkt. No. 66 at 8.

28

Plaintiff also argues that the motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because

1

plaintiff is mentally ill, housed at Napa State Hospital, and has “no way of litigating this civil

2

action properly.” Dkt. No. 71. The court already has addressed the concerns based on Mr. James’

3

mental illness and housing situation, and determined that he may proceed pro se. See Dkt. No. 39

4

at 2-3 (denying initial request for appointment of counsel because of low likelihood of success on

5

the merits of the claims and plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims); Dkt. No. 46 (appointing

6

counsel to determine whether conservator or guardian ad litem was necessary), Dkt. No. 54

7

(finding that guardian ad litem was unnecessary and that plaintiff could represent himself).

8

Plaintiff has filed several documents showing that he is adequately able to present his claims and

9

legal arguments. On the very day plaintiff filed the motion for reconsideration, he also filed a

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

second amendment to his complaint in response to a court order, a request for entry of default, and
a notice of appeal. Dkt. Nos. 68, 69, and 72. Plaintiff also has filed other documents showing his
ability to pursue his legal rights notwithstanding his mental illness and placement at Napa State
Hospital. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 58 (plaintiff’s amendment to his complaint); Dkt. No. 60 (plaintiff’s
opposition to Dr. Liu’s motion for summary judgment); James v. Hayward Police Department,
No. 13-1092 (Dkt. No. 47 (plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment).
Plaintiff’s mental state and housing do not warrant reconsideration of the order granting Dr. Liu’s
motion for summary judgment.
Finally, in light of the medical records and other evidence presented in the summary

18

judgment proceedings, plaintiff’s effort to undo the order granting summary judgment appears to

19
be an effort to keep this portion of his case alive only to coax a nuisance value settlement out of
20
21
22
23
24
25

Dr. Liu. Although plaintiff’s complaint was able to adequately allege a claim against Dr. Liu,
plaintiff produced no evidence that suggested any merit to that claim. Plaintiff’s case against Dr.
Liu amounts to little more than his unsupported personal view that all of his many medical needs
and complex mental health problems had to be resolved before he could be released from the
hospital’s emergency room, even though he was being discharged to a county jail with a medical
department. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. No. 71.

26
27
28
2

1

B.

Motion For Entry Of Default Judgment

2

Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default judgment against the law enforcement

3

defendants. Dkt. No. 69. He argues that default judgment should be entered because they did not

4

file a motion for summary judgment by the deadline.

5

When deadlines were first set for dispositive motions, the court wrote: “If defendants are

6

of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendants must so inform

7

the court prior to the date the motion is due.” Dkt. No. 6 at 4. The briefing schedule was adjusted

8

several times, with the most recent deadline for the law enforcement defendants’ motion for

9

summary judgment being June 26, 2015. Dkt. No. 55 at 3. The law enforcement defendants let

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

the extended deadline for their motion for summary judgment pass without filing a motion or
informing the court that they did not intend to file a motion for summary judgment. Upon inquiry
by court staff, counsel for the law enforcement defendants reported that the case did not appear to
be a good candidate for summary judgment. Defendants are not required to file a motion for
summary judgment, but defense counsel should have complied with the directive to inform the
court of their intent not to file such a motion before the due date rather than wait for inquiries from
the court. Defense counsel’s failure to provide that notice was not, however, a sufficient reason to
enter default or default judgment, contrary to plaintiff’s assumption. Plaintiff’s motion for entry
of default judgment is DENIED. Dkt. No. 69. The law enforcement defendants have filed an

18
answer (Dkt. No. 18) and are not in default.
19
20
C.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Scheduling
Plaintiff has filed a second amendment to the complaint alleging claims against the

remaining doctor-defendants. In order to move this case toward resolution, the court now sets the
following schedule:
The remaining doctor-defendants must file and serve their dispositive motion no later than
December 11, 2015. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the
dispositive motion no later than January 8, 2016. Defendants must file and serve their reply brief
(if any) no later than January 22, 2016.

Plaintiff is reminded to read the warning regarding

28
3

1

summary judgment motions in the order of service, and defendants are reminded to send out a new

2

Rand warning with their dispositive motion.

3

Plaintiff and the law enforcement defendants must file case management statements no

4

later than November 20, 2015. The case management statements do not need to be jointly filed.

5

The case management statements should (1) describe the discovery the parties have done; (2)

6

describe the discovery they plan to do; and (3) propose a discovery schedule and discovery cut-off

7

date.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4