Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00011/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00011-16/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

DENNIS LAMAR JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00011-SI 

ORDER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT 

DEFENDANTS TO SUPPLEMENT 

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 

AND SUBMIT EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. No. 79

On October 30, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff and the law enforcement defendants to file 

case management statements no later than November 20, 2015, and, in those case management 

statements to “(1) describe the discovery the parties have done; (2) describe the discovery they 

plan to do; and (3) propose a discovery schedule and discovery cut-off date.” Docket No. 74 at 4. 

The law enforcement defendants’ case management statement (Docket No. 79) was four days late 

and incomplete.1 These deficiencies are noteworthy because the court had just pointed out that 

counsel for law enforcement defendants failed to comply with an earlier court order to inform the 

court of their intent not to file a dispositive motion. See Docket No. 74 at 3. 

 

1

The portion of the law enforcement defendants’ case management statement that purports 

to provide the requested information states, in total: “Plaintiff recently served defendants with a 

request for production of documents and interrogatories, to which Defendants will serve 

responses. Defendants have withheld serving written discovery requests on Plaintiff due to his 

incarceration and at times, mental incapacitation, throughout the course of this lawsuit. While 

Defendants continue to explore their options for resolving his matter by dispositive motion, they 

will move forward with litigation of this matter. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s changeable mental 

condition has presented challenges concerning how best to move forward.” Docket No. 79 at 2.

Case 3:13-cv-00011-SI Document 82 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Due to the absence of some of the requested information in their case management 

statement, the law enforcement defendants must file and serve another case management statement

no later than January 11, 2016. Their supplemental case management statement must actually 

describe the discovery they plan to do. For example, it should state who/what they plan to 

subpoena, who they plan to depose, whether they plan to request a production of documents, 

whether they plan to propound interrogatories, and whether they plan to propound requests for 

admissions. Their supplemental case management statement also must propose a discovery 

schedule and a discovery cut-off date.

In addition, the law enforcement defendants must attach as an exhibit to their supplemental 

case management statement a complete copy of the Oakland Police Department’s file relating to 

the February 19, 2012 arrest, detention and jailing of plaintiff. In case there is any doubt, the law 

enforcement defendants also must serve a copy of that case management statement with the 

exhibit on plaintiff and on the doctor-defendants. 

The court is mindful that plaintiff’s mental status and housing at Napa State Hospital 

present some challenges, but that is no reason for the law enforcement defendants to fail to follow 

court orders. The law enforcement defendants should treat this case like other pro se prisoner 

litigation, and may bring to the court’s attention specific problems relating to plaintiff’s mental 

status and housing if such problems arise. The court can consider scheduling adjustments as the 

need arises, but the case generally should be moving toward resolution, rather than stalling due to 

potential issues that defendants think might exist for the plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00011-SI Document 82 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2