Guillen v. Rocha

Filing 24

ORDER OF SERVICE; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 5/4/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 *E-FILED - 5/4/11* 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROCHA, et ) ) al. ) ) Defendants. ) MARCOS C. GUILLEN, 11 12 13 14 15 No. C 06-5176 RMW (PR) ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 3, 2011, the court conducted a preliminary screening of plaintiff’s 18 complaint and partially dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The court found that, 19 liberally construed, the plaintiff did state a cognizable claim of retaliation. The court instructed 20 plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court within thirty days that he wished 21 to proceed with the cognizable claim found in the order. The court advised that if plaintiff did 22 neither, the court would proceed solely on the retaliation claim as presented in the complaint. 23 More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed a notice, nor filed an amended 24 complaint. 25 Accordingly, the court orders as follows: 26 1. The clerk of the court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall 27 serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy 28 Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Motion for Summary Judgment P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.06\Guillen176srv.wpd 1 of this order upon: Correctional Officer Rocha, Badge # 65173; Acting Warden M.S. Evans; 2 Chief Disciplinary Warden M. Moore III; CCII A. Williams; and CCI P. Nickerson at 3 Salinas Valley State Prison. The clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of this order and the 4 complaint, with all attachments thereto, to the California Attorney General’s Office. 5 2. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall file a 6 motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the cognizable claim 7 in the complaint as set forth above, or notify the court that they are of the opinion that this case 8 cannot be resolved by such a motion. 9 a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff 10 failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 11 defendant shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 12 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual 14 documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 15 Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 16 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 17 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 18 court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 19 20 3. served on defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the date defendants’ motion is filed. 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and a. In the event defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:1 The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground you have not exhausted your administrative remedies. The motion will, if granted, result in the dismissal of your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you may not simply rely on what your complaint 26 27 28 1 The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be given to pro se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14. Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Motion for Summary Judgment 2 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.06\Guillen176srv.wpd 1 2 3 says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or documents, that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that you have in fact exhausted your claims. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 b. In the event defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to plaintiffs: The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 16 See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff is advised to read 17 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 18 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing 19 triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that 20 failure to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a 21 consent by plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against plaintiff 22 without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges 23 v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 24 25 26 27 28 4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 6. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Motion for Summary Judgment 3 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.06\Guillen176srv.wpd 1 or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the 2 document to defendants or defendants’ counsel. 3 4 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 5 For plaintiff’s information, the proper manner of promulgating discovery is to send 6 demands for documents or interrogatories (questions asking for specific, factual responses) 7 directly to defendants’ counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33-34. The scope of discovery is limited to 8 matters “relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . .” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 9 Discovery may be further limited by court order if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably 10 cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less 11 burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by 12 discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the 13 proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). In order to comply 14 with the requirements of Rule 26, before deciding to promulgate discovery plaintiff may find it 15 to his benefit to wait until defendants have filed a dispositive motion which could include some 16 or all of the discovery plaintiff might seek. In addition, no motion to compel will be considered 17 by the Court unless the meet-and-confer requirement of Rule 37(a)(2)(B) and N.D. Cal. Local 18 Rule 37-1 has been satisfied. Because plaintiff is detained, he is not required to meet and confer 19 with defendants in person. Rather, if his discovery requests are denied and he intends to seek a 20 motion to compel he must send a letter to defendants to that effect, offering them one last 21 opportunity to provide him with the sought-after information. 22 8. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 23 and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a 24 timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 25 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5/4/11 DATED: _________________ RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion 4 P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.06\Guillen176srv.wpd

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?