Bayramoglu v. Cate et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 48 Motion to Reopen Case; granting 48 Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

FIKRI BAYRAMOGLU,

Case No. 13-cv-01094-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;
SETTING NEW BRIEFING
SCHEDULE; AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO USE
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING SYSTEM

Defendants.
8
Plaintiff, a frequent litigant in federal court, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42

9

U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order dated July 23, 2014, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was revoked

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Dkt. 27. The case was dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s

12

filing a motion to reopen no later than twenty-eight days from the date of that Order, accompanied

13

by the full filing fee of $350.00. Id. at 10.

14

After being granted multiple extensions of time to do so, Plaintiff has finally paid the full

15

$350.00 filing fee. See Receipt Number 44611012363. He has also filed a motion to reopen this

16

action, a notice of change of address, as well as a request to use the Court’s electronic case filing

17

system. Dkt. 48.
Good cause shown therefor, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen (dkt. 48) is GRANTED, and the

18
19

Court’s July 23, 2014 Order dismissing this case (dkt. 27) is VACATED. The Clerk of the Court

20

is directed to REOPEN this matter. The parties shall abide by the briefing schedule outlined

21

below.

22

Plaintiff also informs the Court that he is no longer incarcerated at a prison in the United

23

States of America. Dkt. 48 at 2. He claims that he was “transferred by Turkish Airline[s] to

24

Istanbul, Turkey under the U.S.-Turkey Prisoner Transfer Treaty.” Id. Plaintiff has provided the

25

Court with his current mailing address in Turkey, his phone number, and his e-mail address. Id.

26

Finally, as mentioned above, Plaintiff has filed a request to use the Court’s electronic case

27

filing system. “ECF” is the acronym for Electronic Case Filing, a filing system that allows parties

28

to file and serve documents electronically. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to use the ECF

1

system and have this case designated as an e-filing case. Dkt. 48. This action is now designated

2

as an e-filing case, and Plaintiff shall follow the instructions relating to e-filing below.
CONCLUSION

3
4

For the reasons outlined above, the Court orders as follows:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen (dkt. 48) is GRANTED.

6

2.

The Court’s July 23, 2014 Order dismissing this case (dkt. 27) is VACATED, and

7
8
9

the Clerk shall REOPEN this matter.
3.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to use the ECF system and have this case

designated as an e-filing case. Dkt. 48. If he has not already done so, Plaintiff should consult the
Court’s public website, www.cand.uscourts.gov, click on the “ELECTRONIC CASE FILING”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

link, and register himself, assuming he has the necessary computer and internet access equipment.

12

Because this case is now designated as an e-filing case, all documents (orders and motions) will be

13

served on Plaintiff only electronically (and no paper copy will be sent to him) and all his

14

documents must be filed electronically. As an e-filing litigant, Plaintiff may view and download

15

any order or motion filed by an opponent in the case once without charge. There are no fees to be

16

waived for participation in the e-filing program. Plaintiff is responsible for making sure that

17

his electronically filed documents actually get filed.

18

4.

The parties shall abide by the following briefing schedule:
a.

19

No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, Defendants shall

20

file a motion for summary judgment, which must be accompanied by a Rand1 notice so that

21

Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose

22

the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012). If Defendants are of the opinion

23

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior to the

24

summary judgment motion deadline.
b.

25
26

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed

with the Court and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date on

27
28

1

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
2

1

which Defendants’ motion is filed. Plaintiff shall refer to the Court’s October 30, 2013 Order of

2

Partial Dismissal and Service for a further explanation on summary judgment. Dkt. 8 at 7-8.
c.

3

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the

4

date the opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

5

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.

6

5.

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted.

7

Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the

8

deadline sought to be extended.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

6.

This Order terminates Docket No. 48.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2015
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3