Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05084/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05084-4/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

SENARBLE CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. STRUFFERT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05084-HSG (PR) 

SCHEDULING ORDER

On May 14, 2014, plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, filed a 

pro se amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations by staff 

at Pelican Bay State Prison, where he was formerly incarcerated. On August 28, 2014, the Court 

screened the amended complaint and ordered service on three defendants.

On November 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order seeking to bar 

defendants from using plaintiff’s November 17, 2014 deposition testimony as evidence against 

him in this action. On January 23, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

On March 10, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a protective order on the 

grounds that defendants failed to provide plaintiff reasonable notice of his November 17, 2014 

deposition. Because defendants had used plaintiff’s deposition testimony in their motion for 

summary judgment, the Court denied the motion without prejudice to re-filing after either: 

Case 4:13-cv-05084-HSG Document 54 Filed 04/14/15 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

(1) removing from the motion all reference to the testimony, or (2) taking a new and properlynoticed deposition. 

Defendants have filed a case management statement stating that they wish to re-depose 

plaintiff. Defendants request a new dispositive motion deadline of June 19, 2015. Accordingly, 

the Court now sets the following new briefing schedule:

1. No later than June 19, 2015, defendants must file with the Court and serve upon 

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

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 defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is 

filed. 

3. Defendants 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 defendants’ declarations 

and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not 

Case 4:13-cv-05084-HSG Document 54 Filed 04/14/15 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

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 defendants’ obligation to serve said notice again 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/14/2015

Case 4:13-cv-05084-HSG Document 54 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 3