Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04407/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04407-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE S. MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. NOLL; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-4407 SI (pr)

ORDER

This matter is now before the court for consideration of miscellaneous matters.

A. Service Of Process

The court ordered service of process on five defendants. All five defendants have now

appeared in this action. Defendant Eric Jones is represented by private counsel. Defendants

Decree, Cervantes and Darrett are represented by the California Attorney General's office.

Defendant Ronald Ruggles was represented by the California Attorney General's office and has

been voluntarily dismissed from this action. 

Plaintiff's "motion for entry by default judgment against defendant Eric Jones" is

DENIED. (Docket # 32.) Jones was not in default at the time the motion was made and is not

now in default. Ten days before plaintiff moved for default, Jones had filed a waiver of reply

and demand for jury trial on April 24, 2007 and served it on plaintiff at his prison address.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) contemplates that a default judgment may be sought after

default has been entered against a defendant. See also New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84

F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996) ("After defendant's default has been entered, plaintiff may apply for a

Case 3:06-cv-04407-SI Document 41 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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

2

judgment based on such default. This is a default judgment."); Lee v. Brotherhood of

Maintenance of Way Employees, 139 F.R.D. 376, 380 (D. Minn. 1991). Plaintiff's motion for

default judgment was premature because default had not been entered against defendant Jones.

Now that all defendants have been served and have appeared in this action, there is

nothing remaining to do with regard to service of process. Plaintiff's various requests in his

letters about service of process matters are dismissed as moot. 

B. Schedule For Dispositive Motions

Defendant Jones requested an extension of time to file a summary judgment or other

dispositive motion. Jones requested a 120-day extension of time from his April 24, 2007

application (although his proposed order erroneously extended the deadline only until May 1,

2007). Defendants Cervantes, Decree, and Darrett joined in the request for an extension of time

to file a dispositive motion, and asked that the deadline be extended until September 3, 2007.

Plaintiff opposed the requested extension of time. Upon due consideration of the matter, the

court GRANTS the request for extension of time. (Docket # 25.) It is not in the interests of

judicial efficiency for the court to have to decide the motions on two different occasions if

defendant Jones files one motion and the other three defendants file a separate motion; instead,

it promotes the interest of judicial efficiency for everyone to be on the same briefing schedule.

The court now sets the following new briefing schedule for all defendants to file their dispositive

motion(s):

 1. Defendants must file and serve their dispositive motion(s) no later than

September 14, 2007.

 2. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the

dispositive motion(s) no later than October 19, 2007. Plaintiff is reminded to bear in mind the

notice regarding summary judgment in the order of service as he prepares his opposition.

3. Defendants must file and serve their reply brief(s), if any, no later than

November 2, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-04407-SI Document 41 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

C. Discovery

Plaintiff has sent some discovery requests to the court. The court generally is not

involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute between

the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are

exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)

(listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" be filed with the court until they are

used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery

dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even consider asking the

court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not have enough time or resources

to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very

specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements

(rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties meet and

confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(2)(B); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the

court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel

to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-andconfer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in

a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any discovery

dispute.

Plaintiff also requested issuance of two subpoenas he had filled out. The date for

production on the subpoenas (i.e., July 28, 2007) is too soon to accomplish service. The clerk

will white-out the date on the two subpoenas, issue the subpoenas directed to the litigation

department custodian of records for Salinas Valley State Prison and Lt. G. Jordon) and return

them to plaintiff for him to cause them to be served. The clerk does not serve subpoenas for

parties. 

Case 3:06-cv-04407-SI Document 41 Filed 07/25/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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

D. Letters And Requests For Guidance

The parties are urged to not send letters to the court. If someone wants judicial action,

that person should follow the normal motion procedure or explain in his letter why he/she did

not do so. Additionally, cover letters with routine filings telling the clerk to file the documents

enclosed are unnecessary; the clerk knows what to do with pleadings, motions and requests that

come to the court in the mail or by hand-delivery. 

Plaintiff has filed several letters asking for guidance on litigating this action. The court

does not advise unrepresented or represented litigants as to how to litigate their cases or how to

accomplish various litigation-related tasks. The parties must figure out on their own how to

prepare and present their cases. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04407-SI Document 41 Filed 07/25/07 Page 4 of 4