Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00250/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00250-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAD RUDOLPHO ANGLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY 

MEDICAL CENTER; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-250 SI

SCHEDULING ORDER 

A case management conference set for January 23, 2008, was continued because

defendants had not arranged to have plaintiff (who is confined at Atascadero State Hospital as

a mentally disordered offender) available by telephone for the conference. The case

management conference will be held at 3:30 p.m. on February 26, 2008. All parties (or their

counsel) shall appear by telephone. Defense counsel Rasmussen shall initiate the conference call

and be responsible for having plaintiff connected into the conference call before contacting the

court.

Defendants Alameda County and Alameda County law enforcement officers have filed

a motion to compel San Quentin State Prison/CDCR to comply with a records subpoena for

records pertaining to plaintiff. The briefing schedule for that motion to compel was previously

set in the court's January 8, 2008 scheduling order: Any opposition to the motion to compel by

plaintiff or San Quentin/CDCR must be filed and served on defense counsel no later than

February 1, 2008. Defendants' reply brief (if any) in support of the motion to compel must be

filed and served no later than February 15, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-00250-SI Document 77 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff sent to the court a letter dated January 10, 2008, in which he stated that he was

on new medication and requested an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for

judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants Alameda County Medical Center and Mohammed

Hyderi, M.D. The court GRANTS the request and will permit a limited extension of time.

Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the motion for judgment on the

pleadings no later than February 1, 2008. No further extensions of this deadline will be

permitted, as the motion will have been pending for more than six months by the time that

extended deadline arrives. Defendants must file and serve their reply brief (if any) no later than

February 11, 2008. 

At the case management conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss the initial

disclosure requirement in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants reported

in their case management conference statement that plaintiff had not made the initial disclosures

and it is not clear whether defendants have made their initial disclosures. This case is in an

unusual posture vis-a-vis the initial disclosure requirement because plaintiff once was

represented by counsel but now is not. A case filed by pro se prisoner is exempt from the initial

disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a), the scheduling and planning provisions of Rule 16(b), and

the provision of the local rules regarding case management conferences. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b), 26(a)(1)(E)(iv); N. D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 16-2(a). Usually, the court’s initial review order

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A authorizes discovery and sets a schedule for dispositive motions, and

serves as the case management order in a pro se prisoner case, see Civ. L.R. 16-7, but an initial

review was not done in this case because it was removed from state court after defendants had

been served with process. The parties should be prepared to discuss at the case management

conference whether this case should be exempted from the initial disclosure requirements of

Rule 26(a) and should be prepared to discuss a schedule for discovery. Defense counsel

Rasmussen shall mail a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to plaintiff no later than

February 1, 2008 so that plaintiff has a copy available to him for use at the case management

conference. 

Case 3:07-cv-00250-SI Document 77 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

At the case management conference, the parties also should be prepared to discuss the

status of plaintiff's deposition. Before the case management conference, defense counsel

Rasmussen should have a date set for the deposition of plaintiff and should contact the

authorities at Atascadero State Hospital to make the necessary arrangements for plaintiff's

deposition. Defense counsel also should inquire of hospital authorities as to whether and what

physical restraints (e.g., handcuffs) will be placed on plaintiff during the deposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2008 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00250-SI Document 77 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 3