Berringer v. Meza et al
Filing
14
ORDER OF SERVICE AFTER AMENDMENT. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/10/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7 ANTHONY S. BERRINGER,
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
ORDER OF SERVICE AFTER
AMENDMENT
10 Correctional Officers F. MEZA, M.
SANDOVAL, E. DELROSARIO, and
11 C. LOPEZ,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
No. C 11-1884 PJH (PR)
12
Defendants.
/
13
14
This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The court noted in the
15
initial renew order that plaintiff had stated a claim against defendants Meza, Sandoval, and
16
Lopez. The claim against Delrosario was said to not make sense and was dismissed for
17
plaintiff to provide further detail. In the amended complaint he contends that Delrosario
18
failed to check a system for determining who an inmate’s enemies might be before allowing
19
inmate Hunter into plaintiff’s cell; Hunter was on plaintiff’s enemies list and attacked
20
plaintiff. This is sufficient to state a claim against Delrosario.
21
CONCLUSION
22
1. The clerk shall issue summons and serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of
23
the file, including copies of this order, upon the following defendants: Correctional Officers
24
F. Meza, M. Sandoval, E. Delrosario, and C. Lopez. Plaintiff states that these defendants
25
can be found at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad.
26
2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:
27
a. Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive
28
motion within sixty days of the date this order is entered. If defendants are of the opinion
1
that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior
2
to the date their summary judgment motion is due.
3
b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the
4
court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was
5
served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,”
6
which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.
7
1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).
8
9
If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff
should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th
12
Cir. 2003).
13
14
15
16
17
c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen
days after service of the opposition.
d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is
due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.
3. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or
18
defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the
19
document to defendants or defendants' counsel.
20
4. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court
21
informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely
22
fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
23
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: November 10, 2011.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
26
27
28
P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.11\BERRINGER1884.SERVE.wpd
2
1
NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
2
If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case
3
dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
4
Procedure will, if granted, end your case.
judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue
7
of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result
8
of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter
9
of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary
10
judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot
11
For the Northern District of California
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary
6
United States District Court
5
simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in
12
declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as
13
provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and
14
documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not
15
submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered
16
against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be
17
no trial.
18
19
20
21
22
NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)
If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are
seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.
You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that
23
you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of
24
declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that
25
is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they
26
are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions.
27
28
If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed
and there will be no trial.
3
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?