Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01797-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1797 GEB JFM P

vs.

CLAIR TESKE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth

Amendment by failing to protect plaintiff from a known risk of serious injury and acting with

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs during a period when he was

incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail. Plaintiff also raises a pendent state law negligence claim. 

In his June 9, 2005 first amended complaint, plaintiff names as defendants Claire

Teske, Robert Miller, Loraine Blankenship, Amber Johnson and the Shasta County Jail. 

Defendants Shasta County, Loraine Blankenship and Amber Johnson filed an answer on March

6, 2006. Defendants Teske and Miller filed an answer on March 9, 2006.

On February 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On March

14, 2006, defendants Shasta County, Blankenship and Johnson filed an opposition to the motion,

and on March 22, 2006, defendants Teske and Miller filed an opposition to the motion. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice on May 18, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 96 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 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

 In the initial screening order of the original complaint, the court declined to order service 1

of process on the Shasta County Jail because plaintiff raised claims solely under a theory of

respondeat superior. (December 15, 2004 Order at 3.) However, defendants filed an answer on

behalf of defendant Shasta County Jail, so the court is precluded from dismissing this defendant sua

sponte. 

 Defendants Teske and Miller have been invited to file a motion for summary judgment on 2

at least two prior occasions. (See Orders filed December 8, 2006; November 14, 2006.) 

2

On September 1, 2006, defendants Blankenship and Johnson filed a motion for

summary judgment. On March 2, 2007, defendants Blankenship and Johnson filed their reply. 

Neither of these filings were served on defense counsel for defendants Teske and Miller.

In addition, the motion of defendants Blankenship and Johnson does not address

defendant Shasta County Jail, despite their contention that the first amended complaint fails to

state a claim against this defendant. (See March 6, 2006 Answer, at 10; Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6).)1

On December 13, 2006, plaintiff filed his opposition. This filing was also not

served on defense counsel for defendants Teske and Miller. 

Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “copies of all

documents submitted to the Court shall be served upon all parties to the action.” Id., Local Rule

5-135(e). 

A review of the March 22, 2006 opposition and declarations filed by defendants

Teske and Miller suggests that consideration of a motion for summary judgment for all

defendants simultaneously may serve the ends of judicial economy. It is unclear from this record

whether the failure of the other parties to serve counsel for defendants Teske and Miller with

copies of court filings, as required by the federal rules, played a part in these defendants’ failure

to file such a motion. 

2

Good cause appearing, the motion for summary judgment will be denied without

prejudice to its renewal. All parties are admonished that any further court filing must be served

on plaintiff, counsel for defendants Blankenship, Johnson and Shasta County Jail, and counsel

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 96 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 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

3

for defendants Teske and Miller, and be accompanied by a certificate of service attesting to such

service. 

The dispositive motion deadline will be extended to August 15, 2007. 

Finally, plaintiff is cautioned that the local rules provide for the filing of a motion,

an opposition, and one reply by the moving party. (Local Rule 78-230(m).) Thus, plaintiff may

file one opposition to each motion filed by defendants. No reply or rebuttal to the reply is

permitted to be filed by the nonmoving party.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ September 1, 2006 motion for summary judgment is denied

without prejudice. 

2. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to August 15, 2007. On or before

August 15, 2007, all defendants shall file a dispositive motion.

3. Any further court filing shall be served on plaintiff, counsel for defendants

Blankenship, Johnson and Shasta County Jail, and counsel for defendants Teske and Miller.

DATED: June 13, 2007.

001;brum1797.msjd2 

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 96 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3