Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00358/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00358-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAWN HATTON; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-358 SI (pr)

ORDER 

This action is now before the court for consideration of several miscellaneous matters

regarding pleadings, discovery, and scheduling.

A. Pleading Issues

Plaintiff filed a "submission of John Does [sic] true name, E. Sanchez" that is an

amendment to his amended complaint to identify E. Sanchez as the true name of the person

referred to as John Doe in the amended complaint. (See Docket # 38.) Plaintiff did not provide

an address at which Sanchez could be served. Service of process will be ordered on Sanchez at

Salinas Valley State Prison, which is his/her last known business address. In light of the need

to serve process on defendant Sanchez, the court GRANTS plaintiff's and the CDC defendants'

requests to reset the briefing schedule on the dispositive motions. (Docket #s 37, 41, 43.) 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. He needs court permission

because he has already once amended his complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)

provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Plaintiff has not

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 49 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1There are two different attorneys for defendants: Monterey County Sheriff's Deputy

Vince Earland is represented by the county counsel's office for Monterey County and the CDC

employees are separately represented by the office of the Attorney General of the State of

California. Sending something to only one of the defense attorneys is inadequate; for the

discovery matters, as for everything filed in this court, both attorneys must be served separately.

2

shown that justice requires that he be permitted to further amend his pleading. First, there has

been inexplicable delay: the motion is made rather late in the proceedings, is not based on any

new information, and one defendant has already filed a dispositive motion. Second, a second

amended complaint is not necessary to name defendant E. Sanchez, as that was done earlier by

plaintiff's amendment to the amended complaint. Third, plaintiff's effort to add a claim for

denial of access to the courts/retaliation would be futile. As the court previously explained at

length, the constitutional right of access to the court does not guarantee a right to litigate

effectively once in court and the Heck rule bars damages claims based on assertions that

defendants' activities precluded a fair trial or interfered with any of plaintiff's constitutional

rights necessary to his criminal trial, and any appeal therefrom. See Aug. 11, 2005 Order Of

Dismissal With Leave To Amend, pp. 4-7. The motion for leave to amend the complaint is

DENIED. (Docket # 40.) 

B. Discovery

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to produce for inspection and copying

documents he requested on August 17, 2006. The motion to compel is DENIED. (Docket # 42.)

First, the motion is defective because it is unsigned. Second, plaintiff did not make a good faith

effort to meet and confer before filing the motion: he sent his motion to compel to the court just

ten days after mailing the meet-and-confer letter(s), which did not allow reasonable time for any

informal resolution of a discovery dispute. Third, it cannot be determined from the meet-andconfer letter to whom it was sent, and one of the defense attorneys has no record of receiving it.1

See Motion To Compel, Exh. 2. Fourth, and most importantly, both the state defendants and

county defendant filed oppositions showing that they did respond to plaintiff's requests for

production of documents. Plaintiff did not dispute this in any reply. There is no need for a court

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 49 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3

order compelling the production of documents. 

C. Further Proceedings

1. Plaintiff's filings have had a couple of recurring problems that must stop. First,

plaintiff has failed to sign several documents he has filed, such as his discovery requests and his

amended complaint (although he later complied with a court order for a signed amended

complaint). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The court will disregard any document and deny any

request that is not signed. Second, plaintiff's proofs of service are rather spotty, as some

documents he files have them attached and some do not. In the future, plaintiff must attach to

each document he files a proof of service that shows he has mailed a copy of that document to

each of two attorneys representing the defendants in this action. The court will disregard any

document and deny any request filed by plaintiff that does not have attached to it a proof of

service. 

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

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the amended complaint, a copy of docket # 38, a

copy of the order of service, and a copy of this order upon correctional officer E. Sanchez at

Salinas Valley State Prison.

3. Now that there is an additional state defendant on whom service of process must

be made, the court will vacate the existing briefing schedule for dispositive motions and set new

schedules. 

a. County Defendant's Motion: The motion for summary judgment filed by

defendant Monterey County Deputy Sheriff Earland has been pending for several months and

need not await the service of the new state defendant. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition

to defendant Earland's motion for summary judgment no later than January 12, 2007. No

further extensions of time will be permitted on this deadline. Defendant Earland must file and

serve his reply, if any, no later than January 26, 2007.

b. State Defendants' Motion: The following briefing schedule is set for any

motion for summary judgment to be filed by the CDC defendants: 

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 49 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

i. No later than February 2, 2007, defendants must file and serve a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that

this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the

date the motion is due.

ii. Plaintiff's opposition to the state defendants' summary judgment or

other dispositive motion must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than

March 2, 2007. Plaintiff is reminded to bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary

judgment that was contained in the order of service as he prepares his opposition to any summary

judgment motion.

iii. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed

and served no later than March 23, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 49 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 4