Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02490/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02490-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE— No. C-06-02490 RMW

MAG

E-Filed on: 2/1/2007

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANIEL BOGGLEN

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN BENITO, and Does 1

through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. C-06-02490 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; CONTINUING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re Docket No. 28]

Plaintiff Daniel Bogglen filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

that the County of San Benito ("the County") had denied medical attention while he was serving a

90-day sentence in February 2005. It appears that subsequent to filing the complaint, plaintiff was

once again taken into custody. Consequently, plaintiff's counsel sought leave to withdraw on

September 27, 3006. Leave to withdraw was granted on November 21, 2006, leaving the plaintiff to

proceed pro se. The address provided for plaintiff was in the North Kern State Prison in Delano,

California.

Case 5:06-cv-02490-RMW Document 39 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 5
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 DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE— No. C-06-02490 RMW

MAG

2

On December 29, 2006, the court received a letter from defense counsel informing it that

plaintiff had been moved from North Kern State Prison to Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran,

California. On that same date, the County filed a motion for summary judgment that was set for

hearing on February 2, 2007. To date, plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the complexity of the summary judgment rule combined with

the lack of legal sophistication of the pro se prisoner requires that pro se plaintiff's in prisoner cases

receive a notice phrased in ordinary, understandable language. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952,

960 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). The notice "must clearly and conspicuously inform the pro se

prisoner that if the motion for summary judgment is granted, the prisoner's case will be over [and]

that if the pro se prisoner fails to controvert the moving party with opposing counter-affidavits or

other evidence, the moving party's evidence might be taken as the truth, and final judgment may be

entered against the prisoner without a trial." Id.

The movant may provide this notice, but if it does, that notice "must be in a separate form

that the plaintiff will recognize as given pursuant to the court's requirement [and] may not be

provided within the summary judgment motion or in the papers ordinarily filed in support of the

motion." Id. at 960. Upon review of the docket and the County's moving papers, it does not appear

that plaintiff was given such notice by the defendant. 

"Of course, the ultimate responsibility of assuring that the prisoner receives fair notice

remains with the district court." Id. Accordingly, because plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the

court hereby provides the required notice. It will also provide plaintiff one set of copies and grant

plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The court will

continue defendant's motion for summary judgment, order further briefing, and re-consider this

motion once the briefing is submitted. 

2. The clerk is directed to copy and provide to plaintiff the following documents from the

court file: documents 1, 3, and 28-38. If plaintiff requires a full copy of his deposition or access to

Case 5:06-cv-02490-RMW Document 39 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 5
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 DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE— No. C-06-02490 RMW

MAG

3

discovery conducted in this case, he should request such materials from his former attorney, William

L. Marder, Polaris Law Group, LLP, 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200, Hollister, CA 95023. 

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment with the court and

serve a copy upon defendant within forty-five days of the date of this order. As set forth above, 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 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.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (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 defendant's

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 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Case 5:06-cv-02490-RMW Document 39 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 5
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 DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE— No. C-06-02490 RMW

MAG

4

4. Defendant shall file a reply brief within fifteen days of plaintiff's service of the

opposition. 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.

5. Plaintiff is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on defendants

by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. Plaintiff must keep the court and all

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

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: 2/1/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02490-RMW Document 39 Filed 02/01/07 Page 4 of 5
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 DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE— No. C-06-02490 RMW

MAG

5

A copy of this order was mailed on 2/1/07 to:

Plaintiff, pro se

Daniel Bogglen

CDC #: F46098

Corcoran State Prison

P.O. Box 8800

Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

Former Counsel for Plaintiff:

William L. Marder

Polaris Law Group, LLP

501 San Benito Street, Suite 200

Hollister, CA 95023

831-531-4214

Counsel for Defendant:

Michael C. Serverian 

Rankin Landsness Lahde Serverian & Stock, Suite 500 

96 N. Third Street 

San Jose, CA 95112 

408-293-0463 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:06-cv-02490-RMW Document 39 Filed 02/01/07 Page 5 of 5