Indiveri v. Mack
Filing
55
ORDER OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT D. DO-WILLIAMS signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/12/2018. (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2018) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/13/2018: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/13/2018: # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service to Defendant's Attorney of Record) (sfbS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOHN A. INDIVERI,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 17-00595 BLF (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE ON
DEFENDANT D. DO-WILLIAMS
v.
14
RICHARD MACK, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, proceeding pro se, filed a second amended civil
18
19
rights complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at the
20
Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and the medical appeals office. (Docket No. 38.)
21
On August 9, 2018, the Court screened the SAC and directed the Clerk of the Court to mail
22
service documents to Defendants Ellen Greenman, MD, and Kathryn Graham at SVSP.
23
(Docket No. 47.) The Court also provided Plaintiff a final opportunity to provide the
24
Court with more information for Defendant D. Do-Williams.1 (Id.) On August 30, 2018,
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant D. Do-Williams was a party to Plaintiff’s original and first amended
complaints, (Docket Nos. 1, 18), and had previously been issued an order of service at
SVSP. (Docket No. 6.) The Litigation Coordinator of SVSP sent a letter to the Court
stating that Defendant D. Do-Williams had transferred to California Health Care Facility
(“CHCF”) in Stockton. (Docket No. 15.) The Court’s attempt to serve the matter on
Defendant Do-Williams at CHCF was unsuccessful. (See Docket Nos. 16, 25.)
1
Plaintiff filed a notice in response to the Court’s August 9, 2018 Order, providing two
2
addresses. (Docket No. 52.) The first address provided, P.O. Box 1315, Galt, CA 95632,
3
is the address of record with the Medical Board of California. (Id., Ex. A.) The second
4
address, 7707 Austin Road, Stockton, CA 95215, is listed as a place of practice. (Id., Ex.
5
B.) Based on the information provided, the Court will order the matter served on
6
Defendant D. Do-Williams at the address provided as her place of practice.
7
CONCLUSION
8
9
10
For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows:
1.
The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy
12
of the second amended complaint, (Docket No. 38), all attachments thereto, a copy of the
13
Court’s August 9, 2018 Order, (Docket No. 47), and a copy of this order upon Defendant
14
Dr. D. Do-Williams at 7707 Auston Rd. Stockton, CA 95215. The Clerk shall also mail
15
a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants who have already appeared in
16
this action.
17
2.
Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
18
Procedure requires him to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the
19
summons and the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendant, after being notified of this
20
action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons,
21
fails to do so, he will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause shown
22
for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will
23
proceed as if Defendant had been served on the date that the waiver is filed, except that
24
pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be required to serve and file an answer
25
before sixty (60) days from the day on which the request for waiver was sent. (This
26
allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is
27
necessary.) Defendant is asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver
28
2
1
form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of
2
service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but
3
before Defendant has been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from
4
the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the
5
waiver form is filed, whichever is later.
6
3.
No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed,
7
Defendant shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with
8
respect to the claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above.
a.
9
Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate
factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Civil Procedure. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor
12
qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If Defendant is of the opinion
13
that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior
14
to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
b.
15
In the event Defendant files a motion for summary judgment, the
16
Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate
17
warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See
18
Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012).
19
4.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court
20
and served on Defendant no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendant’s
21
motion is filed.
22
Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
23
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment
24
must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential
25
element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to
26
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to
27
the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See
28
3
1
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18
2
F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994).
3
4
5
5.
Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after
Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
6.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting papers.
6
(Docket Nos. 41-44.) Defendant’s opposition to the motion shall be filed twenty-eight
7
(28) days from the date this order is filed. Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no later than
8
fourteen (14) days after Defendants’ opposition is filed.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
7.
The above motions shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is
due. No hearing will be held on the motions unless the Court so orders at a later date.
8.
All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on
12
Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true
13
copy of the document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel.
14
9.
Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
15
Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local
16
Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
17
10.
It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
18
court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a
19
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
20
prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
21
22
23
24
11.
Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be
extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9/18/2018
Dated: _____________________
________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
Order of Service on Def. D. Do-Williams
PRO-SE\HRL\CR.17\00595Indiveri_serve-DoWilliams
28
4
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?