Santiago v. Brennan

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS CONCERNING DISCOVERY, APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER, ENTRY OF DEFAULT, AND DECLARATION OF PERJURY. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/16/2020. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2020)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

WILLIE ROMERO SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff,

8

vs.

9
10

Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
CONCERNING DISCOVERY, APPOINTMENT
OF A SPECIAL MASTER, ENTRY OF
DEFAULT, AND DECLARATION OF PERJURY

LOUIS DEJOY, United States Postmaster
General,

11

United States District Court

Case No.: 20-CV-1571 YGR

Defendant.

DKT. NOS. 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61

12

Plaintiff Willie R. Santiago has filed a new series of motions and miscellaneous filings, some

13
14

of which appear to replicate motions the Court previously ruled on and some of which raise new

15

issues.

16

With respect to the motions concerning review of affidavits, trial setting, or evidence to be

17

viewed by a jury (Dkt. Nos. 38, 43, 45), as previously indicated by the Court, such requests are also

18

premature and are DENIED.

19
20
21

With respect to the motions at Docket Nos. 42 and 61, requesting appointment of a special
master and a medical expert, those requests are DENIED for failure to establish a reason for doing so.
With respect to the motions concerning discovery, and plaintiff’s filings appearing to be

22

discovery requests (Dkt. Nos. 38, 47, 52, 54, 60), those motions are DENIED as premature. Plaintiff

23

must serve discovery on the party required to answer, not file discovery questionnaires with the

24

Court. Plaintiff must also allow the responding party sufficient time under the Federal Rules to

25

respond to those requests before seeking Court intervention to compel a response. The Court further

26

notes that it has stayed discovery until defendant(s) have filed an answer in this matter, that is, until

27

the Court has resolved any motions to dismiss plaintiff’s current complaint.

28

1

With respect to the motions requesting the Court declare that certain persons guilty of perjury

2

(Dkt. Nos. 50, 55), the motions are DENIED. The Court is not in a position to make determinations

3

of fact, much less determinations of guilt, with respect to any statements not before it.

4

With respect to the motions to enter a default or to declare that the motion to dismiss was not

5

filed timely (Dkt. Nos. 46, 59), the motions are DENIED. Plaintiff is incorrect in his calculations of

6

the time by which defendants were required to respond. Plaintiff asked for and was given leave to

7

file an amended complaint, relieving defendant from the obligation to answer his original complaint.

8

Plaintiff did so on September 1, 2020, and defendant timely and properly filed a motion to dismiss in

9

response to the Amended Complaint. The Court has, by separate order, granted that motion to

Northern District of California

dismiss and given plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Defendant may respond to

11

United States District Court

10

that Second Amended Complaint with an answer or with a proper motion to dismiss. No default

12

may properly be entered at this time.

13
14
15
16
17
18

The motion at Docket No. 44 to grant an extension of time is DENIED AS MOOT and as
having been addressed by the Court’s prior Order.
This terminates Docket Nos. 43, 44, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 16, 2020

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2