Ortega v. Santa Clara County Jail et al

Filing 47

ORDER VACATING 31 ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND 32 JUDGMENT; SETTING BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/7/2022. Dispositive Motion due by 4/7/2022.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARLOS A. ORTEGA,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

ORDER VACATING ORDER OF
DISMISSAL AND JUDGMENT;
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

A. FLORES, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-00319-HSG

12
13

Plaintiff, an insanity acquittee at Napa State Hospital and proceeding pro se, filed the

14

instant civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

15

VACATES the November 27, 2019 order of dismissal and related judgment (Dkt. Nos. 31, 32),

16

and orders briefing on the issue of whether this action is time-barred.
DISCUSSION

17
18
19

I.

Procedural Background
On January 18, 2019, Plaintiff commenced the instant action. The Court found that the

20

complaint stated a cognizable claim for excessive force, in violation of either the Eighth

21

Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment, against Santa Clara County Jail officers A. Flores, J.

22

Diaz, Melek, and Dugamis. Dkt. No. 7. On November 27, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’

23

motion to dismiss the action as time-barred, finding inter alia that Plaintiff’s commitment to Napa

24

State Hospital and the finding that he was not guilty by reason of sanity in an unrelated state

25

criminal proceeding did not entitle him to either statutory or equitable tolling. See generally Dkt.

26

No. 31. The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants that same day. Dkt. No. 32.

27

Plaintiff appealed. Dkt. No. 33.

28

On December 9, 2021, the Ninth Circuit found that this Court erred in dismissing the

1

action as time-barred. Dkt. No. 45. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further

2

proceedings. Id. Pursuant to the remand, the Clerk reopened this action on January 3, 2022. Dkt.

3

No. 46.
Accordingly, the Court VACATES the November 27, 2019 order of dismissal and related

4
5

judgment (Dkt. Nos. 31, 32).

6

II.

7
8
9

Setting Briefing Schedule
Whether Plaintiff’s action is time-barred is a threshold issue that should be determined

before proceeding to the merits of this action. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows.
Within 90 days of the date of this order, Defendants shall file a summary judgment motion
addressing whether this action is time-barred. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion shall

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

be filed and served no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ motion is filed.

12

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff’s opposition is

13

filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will

14

be held on the motion. If the Court finds that this action is not time-barred, the Court will allow a

15

second round of dispositive motions addressing the merits of the case.

16

Plaintiff is reminded that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in

18

order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted

19

when there is no genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

20

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to

21

judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a

22

motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn

23

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out

24

specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

25

as provided in [current Rule 56(c)], that contradict the facts shown in Defendants’ declarations and

26

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit

27

your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you.

28

If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v.
2

1

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A). The Court’s December 29,

2

2016 screening order allowed for the parties to engage in discovery in accordance with the Federal

3

Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff believes that he requires further discovery to oppose a

4

dispositive motion, he should promptly make the necessary discovery requests so that he may

5

timely oppose the dispositive motion according to the schedule set forth in this order.
CONCLUSION

6
7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows.

8

1.

9
10

The Court VACATES the November 27, 2019 order of dismissal and related

judgment (Dkt. Nos. 31, 32).
2.

Within 90 days of the date of this order, Defendants shall file a summary judgment

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

motion addressing whether this action is time-barred. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion

12

shall be filed and served no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ motion is

13

filed. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff’s

14

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No

15

hearing will be held on the motion.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/7/2022
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3