Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05864/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05864-6/pdf.json

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

JEFFREY BARCLAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. POLANCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05864-JST (PR) 

SCHEDULING ORDER

On January 22, 2015, plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison–Sacramento, filed a

pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California. On March 4, 2015, the Eastern District found the complaint stated a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against G. Polanco, a correctional officer at 

San Quentin State Prison, where plaintiff was previously incarcerated. In a November 10, 2015 

order, entered after defendant Polanco was served, the Eastern District directed the parties to file 

all pretrial motions on or before May 13, 2016. On December 17, 2015, the Eastern District 

transferred the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s January 22, 2015 complaint and agrees that, liberally 

construed, it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against G. Polanco. 

Accordingly, the Court now sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than May 13, 2016, defendant must file with the Court and serve upon 

plaintiff a motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment also must be 

Case 3:15-cv-05864-JST Document 37 Filed 12/29/15 Page 1 of 3
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

accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what 

is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 

2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be 

served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion must be 

filed with the Court and served upon defendant no later than 28 days from the date the motion is 

filed. 

3. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition 

is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing 

will be held on the motion. 

4. Plaintiff is advised that 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 [current Rule 56(c)], 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no 

trial. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

(The Rand notice above does not excuse defendant’s obligation to serve said notice again 

concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

5. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 

to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

Case 3:15-cv-05864-JST Document 37 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 3
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

6. 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) or Local Rule 16 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05864-JST Document 37 Filed 12/29/15 Page 3 of 3