Conerly et al v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 73

ORDER TO STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE CASE 72 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/8/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/8/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RODNEY J. CONERLY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-03168-SI v. LAURIE SMITH, et al., Defendants. ORDER TO STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE CASE Re: Dkt. Nos. 71, 72 12 13 In this pro se civil rights action, plaintiff claims that various staff members at the Santa 14 Clara County Jail were deliberately indifferent to his safety, in violation of his Fourteenth 15 Amendment rights. Plaintiff was in custody at the time he filed this action, but later was released. 16 See Docket No. 67-1. 17 This matter is now before the court for consideration of two recent filings. First, the court 18 has received a request for a 180-day stay on plaintiff’s behalf. Docket No. 72. The request is 19 signed by his son and states that plaintiff suffered a stroke in the first week of October, 20 experiencing partial paralysis on one side of his body, and remained hospitalized as of October 23, 21 2017. Id. Second, defendants have filed a discovery letter in which they report that plaintiff did 22 not respond to their August 9, 2017 request for production of documents and did not respond to 23 their September 21, 2017 meet-and-confer letter that requested a response within two weeks. 24 Docket No. 72. (It cannot be determined from the filings whether plaintiff’s stroke occurred 25 before or after the deadline for him to respond to the meet-and-confer letter.) 26 Given the medical condition of the pro se plaintiff, it does not appear that plaintiff could 27 now respond to the request for production of documents, even if ordered to do so. The court 28 therefore declines to order plaintiff to respond to the request for production of documents at this 1 time. If and when this action ever resumes, defendants are welcome to move to compel responses 2 to their request for production of documents. 3 Plaintiff’s request for a stay is GRANTED. Docket No. 72. There does not appear to be 4 any reason to stay the case for exactly 180 days, as it may take much less or much more time for 5 plaintiff to recover from his stroke. Within thirty days of the date on which plaintiff is both out of 6 the hospital and is again able to read and write, plaintiff must file a motion to lift the stay, so that 7 this litigation may resume. This action is now STAYED until further order of the court. The clerk 8 shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case. The court has concerns about an inmate who appears to be directing or controlling this 10 action for plaintiff. The request for a stay came to the court in an envelope sent by Rudy Wilkins, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 an inmate at San Quentin State Prison. The envelope has Wilkins’ San Quentin State Prison 12 address as the return address, and the envelope has “NSF” stamped on it, which apparently is 13 stamped on mail when a prisoner has “non-sufficient funds” so that the State must pay for the 14 postage. 15 determined from his other filings. See Wilkins v. Alameda Co. Sheriff’s Dept., No. 17-cv-340 LB. 16 Although he was at San Quentin State Prison, Wilkins signed several proofs of service attached to 17 the request for a stay, stating under penalty of perjury that he sent documents from Emeryville on 18 October 1 and 23, 2017. See Docket No. 72 at 7-8, 11-14; Docket No. 72-1. These facts raise two 19 concerns. First, Wilkins is cautioned to learn about the prison’s rules for indigent mail services 20 because he may face adverse consequences within the prison if he is misusing the prison’s 21 indigent mail service. Second, the certificates of service purportedly mailed from Emeryville by 22 someone in state prison appear to be incorrect. Plaintiff Conerly is cautioned that he is responsible 23 for the prosecution of this case, and that filings on his behalf with false statements reflect as 24 poorly on him as on the person who signs the documents. 25 26 27 28 Docket No. 72-2. Wilkins has been at San Quentin throughout 2017, as can be IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 8, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?