Gaddy v. Townsend et al

Filing 42

ORDER REOPENING CASE AND VACATING JUDGMENT; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Replies due by 7/6/2018 and Responses due by 6/11/2018. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/13/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL JOHN GADDY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. ORDER REOPENING CASE AND VACATING JUDGMENT; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE M. TOWNSEND, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-01319-HSG 12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed 14 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2017, the Court granted 15 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Dkt. 16 Nos. 34 and 35. Plaintiff appealed. Dkt. No. 36. On March 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit found that 17 it is unclear from the record why defendants refused to correct the error contained in the first level 18 response. Dkt. No. 41. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id. 19 Accordingly, the Court REOPENS the instant action and VACATES the August 16, 2017 20 judgment. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether 21 Defendants’ refusal to correct the error contained in the first level response of Plaintiff’s inmate 22 appeal PBSP-S-14-03014 constituted retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment. Each brief 23 shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages, and shall be filed by June 11, 2018. The parties may 24 supplement the record with any evidence needed to support their briefs. The parties may file 25 responsive briefs, which shall not exceed seven (7) pages, by July 6, 2018. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 4/13/18 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

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?