Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03795/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03795-3/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMON MICKIANGELO BERRY

III, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden,

Defendants. __________________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-3795 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION; GRANTING MOTION FOR

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF

DEFENDANT DR. ANDREW WONG 

(Docket No. 19)

On June 16, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden M.S. Evans (“Evans”), Chief Dental Officer John

Adamo (“Adamo”), Health Care Manager Charles D. Lee (“Lee”), Medical Technical

Attendant A. Johnson (“Johnson”), Medical Technical Attendant J. Armstrong

(“Armstrong”), and Medical Doctor Andrew Wong (“Dr. Wong”), all SVSP officials. On

May 8, 2007, the Court granted plaintiff an extension of time in which to file proof that

defendants had been properly served. Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed May

18, 2007, to voluntarily dismiss defendant Dr. Wong from the instant action. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

In addition, on May 24, 2007, plaintiff filed a declaration by Theresia I. Berry

(“Berry”) stating that on May 23, 2007, she served the remaining five defendants: Evans,

Adamo, Lee, Johnson and Armstrong. On June 7, 2007, those defendants, with the exception

Case 3:06-cv-03795-MMC Document 22 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

1

The papers filed herein do not indicate why Johnson is not included in the answer

filed by the other defendants, who, like Johnson, are SVSP employees. It appears from

Berry’s declaration of May 24, 2007, and the attachments thereto, that plaintiff served

Johnson along with the other defendants. In conjunction with the dispositive motion or

alternative notice referenced below, the California Attorney General shall advise the Court as

to the reason why Johnson was not included in the answer filed by the other defendants, and,

in particular, provide any information he may have suggesting service was not effectuated on

said defendant. If plaintiff chooses to do so, plaintiff may submit further documentation

demonstrating that Johnson was properly served, including copies of the notice and

acknowledgment of receipt forms referenced in Berry’s declaration.

2

of Johnson, collectively filed an answer.1 

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED as to defendant Dr. Andrew Wong.

2. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall file

a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in the

complaint found to be cognizable above. If defendants are of the opinion that no such

motion is appropriate, defendants shall file in lieu thereof, and within ninety (90) days of the

date of this order, a notice informing the Court of such determination. 

a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the ground plaintiff

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810

(2003). 

b. 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

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted,

nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the

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

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

3. 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. 

a. In the event defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss under

Case 3:06-cv-03795-MMC Document 22 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

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.

3

Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:2

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 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.

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.

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 (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

Case 3:06-cv-03795-MMC Document 22 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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

of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

7. 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.

8. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court 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).

9. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline

sought to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

This order terminates Docket No. 19.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-03795-MMC Document 22 Filed 06/14/07 Page 4 of 4