Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01998/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01998-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BALE PERCELLE, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. ALAN ROSENTHAL, DR.

QUAN DINH, DR. C. KRISHNA, DR.

POMPAN, DR. M. FRIEDMAN, and

JOHN and JANE DOES of the review

committee, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-1998 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

AND SANCTIONS, LIFTING STAY,

AND SETTING DEADLINES

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The Court granted in part and

denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and to determine sufficiency of discovery responses,

denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and denied defendants’ motion for

summary judgment because further discovery was needed. The case was referred to Magistrate

Judge Nandor Vadas for mediation or settlement and further proceedings, except those related

to the reference to Judge Vadas, were stayed.

Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees and sanctions (document number 59 on the

docket) while the stay was in effect. It is DENIED because it was filed in violation of the stay. 

Judge Vadas reports that he was unable to settle the case. Plaintiff’s motion to lift the

stay (document 65) therefore is GRANTED and the stay is LIFTED. 

///

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 66 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 2
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

An order entered on October 23, 2007, granted the Attorney General’s motion to seal the

home addresses of unserved defendants. The Attorney General contended that in the past when

home addresses had been provided they had been inadvertently revealed by the marshal. Noted

in that order was that “when the stay is lifted the Court will solicit suggestions from the

Attorney General as to how he proposes that the complaint be served without revealing the

addresses to the marshal.” The stay now having been lifted, the Attorney General shall submit

within fourteen days of the date this order is entered his suggestions for obtaining service on the

three unserved defendants. 

In order to expedite resolution of this case, the court sets the following deadlines:

1. Discovery shall be completed within thirty days of the date this order is

entered. 

2. No later than sixty days from the date this order is entered, defendants shall

file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a statement that no such

motion is justified. 

3. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date of service of the

motion. 

4. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen

days after the date of service of the opposition. 

5. The motion will 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.05\PERCELLE998.LIFT STAY.wpd 

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 66 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 2