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)

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