Doyle v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 100

ORDER DENYING PENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING;REQUIRING FILING OF CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND SETTING COMPLIANCE HEARING by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; denying 50 Motion for Leave to File; denying 51 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 52 Motion to Dismiss; denying 58 Motion to Strike ; denying 69 Ex Parte Application ; denying 71 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 81 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 93 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 30 Motion to Dismiss. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SEAN PATRICK DOYLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATIONS, et al.,

Case No.: 12-CV-2769 YGR
ORDER DENYING PENDING DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
REFILING; REQUIRING FILING OF CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND SETTING
COMPLIANCE HEARING

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff Sean Patrick Doyle, a prisoner in California state custody, filed the above-styled

17
18

civil-rights action in May 2012 while proceeding pro se. Plaintiff prosecuted his action without

19

representation for over nineteen months until, on January 16, 2014, two attorneys appeared on his

20

behalf. (Dkt. No. 98.) In the course of the case, numerous motions have been filed, both by and

21

against Plaintiff. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 50, 51, 52, 58, 69, 71, 81, 93.) Plaintiff's counsel has since filed an

22

opposition to one of the several motions pending against Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 99 (opposing Dkt. No.

23

71).)

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 imposes upon courts an obligation to attempt to "secure

25

the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." In the current

26

posture of this case, those goals may best be attained by affording Plaintiff's counsel an opportunity

27

to participate in the entirety of the motion practice now transpiring in this case. Accordingly, the

28

Court DENIES all motions now pending in this action. The denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

1

Plaintiff's refiling, through counsel, any motions previously filed by Plaintiff when proceeding pro

2

se. The denial is further WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants refiling any dispositive motions,

3

provided any such motions are filed jointly (e.g., a single motion to dismiss by all defendants who

4

wish to so move). Plaintiff may then respond through counsel to any such jointly filed defense

5

motions.

6

The Court ORDERS counsel to file a single Joint Case Management Statement identifying

7

any anticipated motion practice in this case, consistent with the undersigned's Standing Order in

8

Civil Cases. No Case Management Conference is required at this time. The parties' Joint Case

9

Management Statement is due no later than Friday, March 14, 2014.

10

The Court SETS a Compliance Hearing on its 9:01 a.m. Calendar on Friday, March 21,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2014, in Courtroom 5 of the United States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland,

12

California. If the parties have filed their Joint Case Management Statement timely, no appearance

13

shall be required and the compliance hearing shall be vacated. Failure to comply may result in

14

sanctions.

15

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 30, 50, 51, 52, 58, 69, 71, 81, and 93.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Date: February 24, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2