McGhee v. Broomfield et al

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 12 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION; DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS; REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE COURT WITH CURRENT ADDRESS. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2021)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

TIJUE ADOLPHUS MCGHEE,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

RONALD BROOMFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-05135-HSG
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE
MOTION; DISMISSING CERTAIN
DEFENDANTS; REQUIRING
PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE COURT
WITH CURRENT ADDRESS
Re: Dkt. No. 12

12
13

Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), has filed a pro se action

14
15

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that SQSP officials violated his constitutional rights. For

16

the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES defendants Broomfield and Davis from this

17

action, and GRANTS defendants Jaime-Daumy and Wren’s request for an extension of time to file

18

their dispositive motion (Dkt. No. 12).
DISCUSSION

19
20
21

I.

Dismissal of Defendants Broomfield and Davis
On September 28, 2020, the Court screened the complaint and found that the complaint

22

stated cognizable First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Jaime-

23

Daumy and Wren, dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims regarding defendant Jaime-Daumy’s

24

harassment, abuse and intimidation, and dismissed defendants Broomfield and Davis from this

25

action with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 8. In the screening order, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that

26

failure to file an amended complaint by October 26, 2020, would result in the complaint docketed

27

at Dkt. No. 1 remaining the operative complaint and the dismissal of defendants Broomfield and

28

Davis. Dkt. No. 8 at 7-8. The deadline to file an amended complaint has passed, and Plaintiff has

1

not filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 1 remains the operative complaint, and defendants

2

Broomfield and Davis are DISMISSED from this action.

3

II.

Resetting Briefing Schedule
Good cause being shown, defendants Jaime-Daumy and Wren’s request for an extension of

4
5

time to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 12. By April 27, 2021, defendants

6

Jaime-Daumy and Wren shall file their dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’

7

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

8

Defendants’ motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days

9

after Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply
brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

III.

Plaintiff’s Failure to Notify of Address Change
Northern District Civil Local Rule 3-11 requires a pro se litigant whose address changes

12
13

while an action is pending to promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new

14

address. See N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-11(a). On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff informed the Court that

15

he had moved to an unspecified motel in Oakland, California. Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff did not

16

provide the Court with a specific address at which he could be reached. Within twenty-eight (28)

17

days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a current address at which he

18

may be reached. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with a current address within the time

19

provided, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

41(b).
CONCLUSION

21
22

For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders as follows.

23

1.

24
25

Defendants Broomfield and Davis are DISMISSED from this action. The Clerk

shall terminate defendants Broomfield and Davis from this action.
2.

The Court GRANTS defendants Jaime-Daumy and Wren’s request for an extension

26

of time to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. No. 12. By April 27, 2021, defendants Jaime-Daumy

27

and Wren shall file their dispositive motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ dispositive

28

motion shall be filed and served no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’
2

1

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

2

opposition is filed.

3

3.

Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall provide the

4

Court with a current address at which he may be reached. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court

5

with a current address within the time provided, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to

6

prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

7

This order terminates Dkt. No. 12.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: 1/7/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3