Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-02925/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-02925-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL LOUTZENHISER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. GROUNDS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-11-2925 TEH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO VACATE SETTLEMENT

PROCEEDINGS

Doc. no. 61

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility

in Soledad, California (CTF), filed a pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA). On September 17, 2014, the

Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part

defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court found the

remaining claims suitable for referral to settlement proceedings

before Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas. A settlement conference

currently is set for February 11, 2015. Before the Court is

defendants' request that the Court vacate the settlement conference

and permit them to file a second motion for summary judgment based

on an expanded factual record. After considering the moving papers

and all other matters presented to the Court, defendants' motion to

vacate the settlement conference is hereby GRANTED.

Case 3:11-cv-02925-TEH Document 64 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 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

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Loutzenhiser-11-2925-vacateNVreferral.wpd 2

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the

Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date this order

is filed, defendants shall file a second motion for summary

judgment. The second 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). 

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion,

if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon defendants no

later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date the motion is filed. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than

fourteen (14) days after the date the opposition is filed. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date

the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion

unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

The Clerk is directed to serve Magistrate Judge Vadas with

a copy of this order.

This order terminates docket number 61.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 01/20/2015 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02925-TEH Document 64 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2