Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04208/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04208-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1Since the Court’s order of service, the U.S. Marshal’s office has notified the Court that

they were unable to serve Defendant McGrath at the address provided by Plaintiff, due to his

retirement. See, docket no. 16. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DION BROOKS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOE MCGRATH, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4208 JSW (PR)

ORDER RESOLVING PENDING

MOTIONS, SETTING MOTION

SCHEDULE AND INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE CLERK

(Docket Nos. 26, 27)

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California, filed this civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the conditions of his confinement at Pelican Bay State

Prison (“PBSP”). On May 1, 2006, this Court ordered service of the amended complaint

on Defendants Marquez, McGrath and Norgaard (docket no. 15).1

 Thereafter, on August

28, 2006, Defendants filed a motion seeking to refer this case for mediation to the

Pelican Bay Mediation Program, which was granted (docket no. 25). 

After Defendant’s motion seeking referral to the mediation program was granted,

Plaintiff filed a motion on February 6, 2007 seeking appointment of counsel during the

settlement conference (docket no. 26). Thereafter, the Court received a request from

Defendants’ counsel on February 14, 2007 to re-set the briefing schedule in this case as

the parties were unable to resolve the case at the settlement conference (docket no. 27)

Case 3:04-cv-04208-JSW Document 29 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

and a notification from Magistrate Judge Vadas that the case had not been settled (docket

no. 28). As such, Plaintiff’s motion for counsel during the settlement conference is

DENIED as moot (docket no. 26) and Defendants’ motion to re-set a briefing schedule in

this case is GRANTED (docket no. 27). The Court’s earlier briefing schedule, set on

May 1, 2006 (docket no. 15), is reinstated. As such, the Court orders as follows:

1. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendants shall

either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice to the

Court that they are of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by dispositive

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. All papers filed with the

Court shall be promptly served on the Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and

served on Defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants' motion is

filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to Plaintiff:

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

defendant's 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.

Case 3:04-cv-04208-JSW Document 29 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary

judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on

every essential element of his claim). 

3. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

4. 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. 

5. As to Defendant McGrath, who has apparently retired, the Clerk shall mail an

address inquiry letter to: Staff Attorney, Legal Affairs Division, California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283-0001. The

letter shall ask for a forwarding address for Defendant McGrath to be provided to the

Court under seal so that the Court can then order the U.S. Marshal to make a further

attempt to serve the complaint on Defendant McGrath.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04208-JSW Document 29 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 3