Dean v. Contra Costa County Superior Court, Martinez

Filing 41

ORDER re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Tim Allen, David Hall. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/21/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

RICHARD O'NEAL DEAN,
Plaintiff,

4
5

v.

6

OFFICER DAVID HALL, et al.,

7

No. C 11-1098 SBA (PR)
ORDER PROVIDING RAND SUMMARY
JUDGMENT NOTICE; AND SETTING
NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE
RELATING TO PENDING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.
______________________________________/

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted.
In its Orders dated May 24, 2011 and February 28, 2012, the Court found that Plaintiff has
stated a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim of an illegal search and seizure against Defendants
Contra Costa Sheriff's Deputies D. Hall and T. Allen. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed his opposition to the motion, and Defendants have filed their
reply to the opposition.
In its Order of Service, the Court, in accordance with the holding of Rand v. Rowland, 154
F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998), explained to Plaintiff what he must do in order to oppose a motion
for summary judgment. A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, however, requires that pro se

19

prisoner-plaintiffs be given "notice of what is required of them in order to oppose" summary

20

judgment motions at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the district court orders

21

service of process or otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935,

22

940-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court now provides the following notice to Plaintiff for

23

his information in connection with Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment:

24
25
26
27
28

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they
seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for
summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is
no genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact
that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary
judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.
When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on
what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in
Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and
documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you
do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate,
may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted [in favor of the
defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.
Rand, 154 F.3d at 962-63.
As mentioned above, Plaintiff has already filed an opposition to Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. In order to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to properly oppose the pending
motion for summary judgment taking into account this Rand summary judgment notice, the Court
now directs the parties to abide by the new briefing schedule on Defendants' motion for summary
judgment outlined below.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is now being given the opportunity to properly oppose
the pending motion for summary judgment taking into account this Rand summary judgment notice.
Thus, the Court now sets the following briefing schedule on Defendants' motion for summary
judgment: No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file and
serve a supplemental opposition since he has already filed an opposition. No later than fourteen
(14) days from the date the supplemental opposition is filed, Defendants shall file and serve their
supplemental reply. No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent exigent
circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

DATED: 9/21/12
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Dean1098.RANDnotice.wpd

2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD ONEAL DEAN,
Case Number: CV11-01098 SBA

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT et al,
Defendant.

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.

11

That on September 24, 2012, 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.

12
13
14
15

17

Richard Oneal Dean
2262 Concord Dr.
Pittsburg, CA 94565

18

Dated: September 24, 2012

16

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Dean1098.RANDnotice.wpd

3