Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02431/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02431-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ANDERSON MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 

(CDCR), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02431-EMC 

ORDER PERMITTING SUCCESSIVE 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Docket Nos. 164, 166, 170

This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action in which Plaintiff claims that defendants 

responded inadequately to his needs for a total knee replacement (TKR) and pain medication. 

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits of the federal constitutional claims but 

did not move for summary judgment on the merits of the state law claims asserted by plaintiff. 

The Court granted in part and denied in part that defense motion for summary judgment on

January 24, 2018. Docket No. 134. 

Defendants now request permission to file two new motions for summary judgment – one 

motion for summary judgment to address state law claims pertaining to Plaintiff’s request for a 

TKR and a separate motion for summary judgment to address state law claims pertaining to 

Plaintiff’s pain medication and retaliation claims. Defendants filed the two motions for summary 

judgment concurrently with their request for permission to file those motions.

1

 Plaintiff responds 

 

1 Defendants further urge that, if the Court does not grant them leave to file the new motion for 

summary judgment regarding the pain medication state-law claims, the Court should remand those 

claims to state court. Because the Court will permit the new motions for summary judgment, it 

does not reach the remand question. 

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 174 Filed 08/08/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

to Defendants’ various filings with a motion for an extension of time to oppose the two requests 

for permission to file new motions for summary judgment as well as for an extension of time to 

oppose the two new motions for summary judgment. 

Under this Court’s standing order, a party may file only one motion for summary judgment 

unless permission is obtained from the Court to file a successive motion for summary judgment. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that “district courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for 

summary judgment.” Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). A successive 

motion for summary judgment “is particularly appropriate on an expanded factual record.” Id.

Although the Court is dismayed that Defendants did not make all their arguments in their 

original motion for summary judgment and greatly delayed in filing their successive motions for 

summary judgment, the interests of justice will be best served by permitting the successive 

motions for summary judgment in this case. Substantial judicial resources and juror time are 

expended whenever a trial is held; it is not sensible to expend these when it may not necessary to 

do so. Defendants have presented a substantially expanded factual record (compared to that 

presented in their original motion for summary judgment) and have included new arguments on 

the state-law claims that were not included in the original motion for summary judgment. There 

appear to be at least some potentially meritorious arguments for relief in Defendants’ successive 

motions for summary judgment. Also, Defendants’ failure to argue the merits of the state law 

claims in their original motion for summary judgment is somewhat understandable: given the 

many cases in which the federal courts have dismissed or remanded to state court the state law 

claims once the federal claims have been resolved, Defendants perhaps were unduly optimistic 

that their original motion for summary judgment would resolve all the federal claims and result in 

a remand of the rest of the action to state court. 

Plaintiff argues at length in his 13-page request for an extension of the deadlines to oppose 

the requests and motions that the successive motions for summary judgment should not be 

permitted because, among other things, Defendants waived the state-law arguments by not making 

them in their original motion for summary judgment. His waiver argument finds no support in the 

law. The Ninth Circuit has held that successive motions for summary judgment are permissible 

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 174 Filed 08/08/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and “particularly appropriate” on an expanded factual record, as is the case here. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ requests for leave to file successive motions for 

summary judgment are GRANTED. Docket Nos. 164, 166. The Court will permit Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment regarding the medication and retaliation state-law claims (Docket 

No. 165) and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding the TKR state-law claims 

(Docket No. 167).

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the deadlines to oppose the requests to file 

successive motions for summary judgment and to oppose the successive motions for summary 

judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Docket No. 170. The Court will 

not extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his oppositions to the requests to file successive 

motions for summary judgment because he has adequately presented the reasons he opposes the 

requests and there is not good cause to wait another thirty days to hear further argument from him 

that would result in a multi-month delay of briefing on the successive motions for summary 

judgment. However, the deadline for Plaintiff to file his oppositions to the two successive motions 

for summary judgment will be extended, however. 

The Court now sets the following briefing schedule. No later than August 20, 2019, 

Defendants must mail to Plaintiff a copy of every case, statute, and rule cited in their new motions 

for summary judgment. No later than October 4, 2019, Plaintiff must file and serve his 

oppositions to the new motions for summary judgment. No later than October 11, 2019, 

Defendants must file and serve their reply briefs, if any.

The parties are expected to keep the two new motions for summary judgment separate. 

That is, Plaintiff should file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment regarding 

medication and retaliation state-law claims and a separate opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment regarding the TKR. Similarly, Defendants should file two separate reply briefs.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 174 Filed 08/08/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff is reminded that his declaration may not include legal argument and instead must be 

limited to statements of fact of which he has personal knowledge. Each opposition brief shall not 

exceed 25 pages of text. Each reply brief shall not exceed 15 pages of text. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 174 Filed 08/08/19 Page 4 of 4