Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01593/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01593-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOYAT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01593-JD 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. The Court ordered service on Defendants Dr. Goyat and Dr. Armbruro who work at Santa 

Rita Jail and according to Plaintiff are employed by Corizon Correctional Healthcare. The United 

States Marshal initiated service at Corizon’s regional office in Alameda, CA. An attorney for 

Corizon sent a letter to the Court stating that no one at the regional office was authorized to 

receive service for these doctors. The Court then sent a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver 

of Service of Summons to Defendants at Santa Rita Jail, however no response has been received. 

Because more time has passed and no defendant has been served, the Court orders the United 

States Marshal to serve the defendants at Santa Rita Jail. The Court anticipates that defendants 

will not obstruct or further delay service.

Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

1. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, copies of the second amended complaint with attachments and copies of this

order on the following defendants: Dr. Goyat and Dr. Armbruro at Santa Rita Jail. The Clerk 

shall also mail a copy of this Order to Matthew Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy Hudgins, 711 Van 

Ness Ave., St. 450, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Case 3:15-cv-01593-JD Document 24 Filed 05/31/16 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

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendant shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by 

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

Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 

events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 

judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date his summary judgment motion is due. All 

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

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendant shall also serve, on a 

separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). 

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and Wyatt notices must be 

given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, 

not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

c. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with 

the Court and served upon defendant no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served 

upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is 

provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), 

and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendant files a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust 

his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take 

note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided 

to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than fifteen 

days after the opposition is served upon him. 

e. 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-01593-JD Document 24 Filed 05/31/16 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

3. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendant, or 

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 

defendants or defendants’ counsel.

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) is required before the 

parties may conduct discovery.

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

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01593-JD Document 24 Filed 05/31/16 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOYAT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01593-JD 

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 May 31, 2016, 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.

Michael A. Williams

Correctional Training Facility

C44000

P.O. Box 690

Soledad, CA 93960-0690 

Dated: May 31, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:15-cv-01593-JD Document 24 Filed 05/31/16 Page 4 of 4