Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05429-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

Order Directing Clerk to Reissue Summons

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_reissue summons.2.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS LARA,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. POSNER, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-05429 JW (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO

REISSUE SUMMONS

Plaintiff, a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs by Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) employees. The Court

ordered service of plaintiff’s amended complaint upon defendants at SVSP. 

Summonses upon defendants Dr. Posner and Dr. Haffner were returned executed on

March 11, 2008. (Docket Nos. 34 & 35.) Pursuant to the Court’s Order of

Summons filed on February 8, 2008, defendants Posner and Haffner are expected to

file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or shall notify the

Court that they are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion,

within sixty (60) days from March 11, 2008, i.e., no later than May 10, 2008.

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 37 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 6
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

Order Directing Clerk to Reissue Summons

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_reissue summons.2.wpd 2

Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with the location information for

defendant McAnutez in the time provided. Accordingly, all claims against

defendant McAnutez in this action are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Based on the information recently provided by the Litigation Coordinator as

SVSP, the Court will order the clerk to reissue summons to defendant Willis. 

CONCLUSION

It is hereby ordered as follows: 

1. The clerk shall re-issue a summons and the United States Marshal 

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint in this

matter (Docket No. 12), all attachments thereto, a copy of the Court’s order filed

November 9, 2006, (Docket No. 17), and a copy of this order to defendant Willis at

the address provided by the Litigation Coordinator. (Docket No. 36.) 

2. All claims against defendant McAnutez in this action are DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case;

a. Defendants shall, within sixty (60) days from the date they are 

served with the amended complaint, file a motion for summary judgment or other

dispositive motion, or shall notify the Court that they are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by such a motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56. 

Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, 

nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If defendants are of

the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 37 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Order Directing Clerk to Reissue Summons

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_reissue summons.2.wpd 3

inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

All papers filed with the Court shall be served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with

the Court and served on defendants’ counsel not 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 pro se 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 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.

See 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, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)

(holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence

showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). 

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by plaintiff to the granting of the

motion, and granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 37 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 6
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

Order Directing Clerk to Reissue Summons

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_reissue summons.2.wpd 4

651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

c. Defendants may file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days

after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

d. 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. 

4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or

Local Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

For plaintiff’s information, the proper manner of promulgating discovery is to

send demands for documents or interrogatories (questions asking for specific, factual

responses) directly to defendants’ counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33-34. The scope of

discovery is limited to matters “relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . .” 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may be further limited by court order if “(i)

the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable

from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action

to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). In order to comply

with the requirements of Rule 26, before deciding to promulgate discovery plaintiff

may find it to his benefit to wait until defendants have filed a dispositive motion

which could include some or all of the discovery plaintiff might seek. In addition,

no motion to compel will be considered by the Court unless the meet-and-confer

requirement of Rule 37(a)(2)(B) and N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1 has been satisfied. 

Because plaintiff is incarcerated he is not required to meet and confer with

defendants in person. Rather, if his discovery requests are denied and he intends to

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 37 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 6
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

Order Directing Clerk to Reissue Summons

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.02\Lara05429_reissue summons.2.wpd 5

file a motion to compel, he must send a letter to defendants to that effect, offering

them one last opportunity to provide him with the information sought.

5. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on 

defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to defendants’ counsel.

6. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must 

keep the Court and the parties informed of any change of address and must comply

with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

April 3, 2008 

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 37 Filed 04/04/08 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS LARA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. POSNER, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV02-05429 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jose Luis Lara K-26793

California Men’s Colony

P. O. Box 8103

San Luis Obispo, Ca 93409

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:02-cv-05429-EJD Document 37 Filed 04/04/08 Page 6 of 6