Ernest v. Davis et al

Filing 30

ORDER FOR SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WALLS, AND SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 9/8/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 WALTER DEAN ERNEST, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 Case No. 16-cv-03655-LB v. MILTON, et al., ORDER FOR SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WALLS, AND SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE Defendants. 16 17 18 The litigation coordinator at San Quentin State Prison has provided to court staff an address at 19 which unserved defendant B.A. Walls apparently may be served with process. The litigation 20 coordinator requests that the address of this former correctional lieutenant remain confidential. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 23 prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the third amended complaint, a copy of all the 24 documents in the case file, and a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge 25 jurisdiction” form upon defendant B. A. Walls. The clerk should not write Mr. Walls’ address on 26 the summons or the other forms provided to the Marshal, and instead should provide that address 27 on a separate piece of paper attached to the summons. The separate piece of paper should be 28 marked “confidential - do not file in public record,” so that the address will not be disclosed to the ORDER – No. 16-cv-03655-LB 1 2 3 4 5 6 prisoner-plaintiff or become part of the public record. 2. No later than October 13, 2017, Mr. Walls must sign and file the form “consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction.” 3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for dispositive motions is set: a. No later than November 17, 2017, the defendants must file and serve a motion for 7 summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If the defendants are of the opinion that this case 8 cannot be resolved by summary judgment, the defendants must so inform the court prior to the 9 date the motion is due. If the defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the defendants must provide to the plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 they file such a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). If the motion is 12 based on nonexhaustion of administrative remedies, the defendants must comply with the notice 13 and procedural requirements in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 14 b. The plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the summary judgment or other 15 dispositive motion no later than December 15, 2017. The plaintiff must bear in mind the notice 16 and warning regarding summary judgment provided in the order of service as he prepares his 17 opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 18 c. If the defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and served no 19 later than January 5, 2017. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 8, 2017 ______________________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – No. 16-cv-03655-LB 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?