Williams v. Kernan et al

Filing 30

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION. Dispositive Motion due by 6/12/2019. Opposition filed 7/10/19; Reply filed 7/24/19. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/14/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2019)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JAMES DAVID WILLIAMS,

Case No. 17-cv-03538-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS
TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION

Defendants.
8
9

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Training Facility (“CTF”),
filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against these Defendants: California

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Scott Kernan; Investigative Services Unit

12

(“ISU”) Lieutenant V. Khan; ISU Sergeant S. Kelley ; ISU Correctional Officers Z. Brown and

13

Officer S. Patterson; CTF Appeals Coordinator J. Truett; and two Doe Defendants. Upon review

14

of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment

15

claim against Defendants.

16

On June 6, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.

17

Plaintiff filed an opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. In a separate but concurrently filed

18

Order, the Court has granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment as

19

to the Eighth Amendment claim. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s requests to amend the

20

complaint to add CTF Correctional Sergeant S. Rodriguez and CTF Correctional Officer R. Salas

21

as named Defendants as well as to serve these newly-added Defendants.

22

However, upon closer review of the legal arguments made by Plaintiff in opposition to the

23

dispositive motion, in conjunction with a further evaluation of Plaintiff’s complaint, it became

24

apparent to this Court that Plaintiff’s complaint reveals additional claims that were not mentioned

25

in earlier Orders. Specifically, Plaintiff’s complaint shows that he also provided sufficient facts

26

and alleged cognizable claims that his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by

27

Defendants Brown, Patterson, Rodriguez, and Salas. See Bull v. San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964,

28

974-75 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (noting that the Fourth Amendment applies to the invasion of

1

bodily privacy in prisons); Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1320 (9th Cir. 1996) (“the

2

Fourteenth Amendment protects against a State’s interferences with personal decisions relating to

3

marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education, as well as

4

with an individual’s bodily integrity”) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled in part on

5

other grounds by Crown Point Dev., Inc. v. City of Sun Valley, 506 F.3d 851, 856 (9th Cir. 2007).

6

Defendants have not directly addressed the newly-identified Fourth and Fourteenth

7

Amendment claims in a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion because the

8

Court failed to previously serve those claims on Defendants. To that end, Defendants Brown,

9

Patterson, Rodriguez, and Salas are directed to file a dispositive motion with respect to Plaintiff’s
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments claims, or a notice that such a motion is unwarranted. The

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

parties shall abide by the briefing scheduled outlined below.
CONCLUSION

12
13

Defendants shall file a dispositive motion, or notice that no such motion is warranted, with

14

respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments claim against Defendants Brown,

15

Patterson, Rodriguez, and Salas. The motion is due no later than ninety (90) days from the filing

16

date of this Order. Plaintiff’s opposition is due no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date

17

Defendants’ motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply within fourteen (14) days thereafter.

18

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed

19

of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Pursuant to

20

Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes while an

21

action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new address. See

22

L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail directed to the

23

pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and (2) the Court fails

24

to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro se party

25

indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 14, 2019

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge
2