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