Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02689/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02689-3/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS H. ALMEIDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK E. DUCART, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02689-JD 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 31

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff raised several claims regarding his validation as a gang member and placement in 

the Secured Housing Unit. Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiff’s 

complaint was barred by California’s claim-preclusion doctrine. The Court granted the motion 

and the case was closed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding plaintiff was not 

precluded from bringing his claims in this court. See Almeida v. Ducart, No. 17-16302 (9th Cir. 

April 24, 2019). The judgement in this case (Docket No. 31) is VACATED and the Court orders 

as follows:

No later than 180 days from the date of this order, defendants may file a motion for 

summary judgment. All papers filed with the Court must be promptly served on the plaintiff.

If a summary judgement motion is filed, defendant will also serve, as a separate document, 

the notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 

banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 

F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion must be filed with the Court and served on defendant 

no later than 45 days after the motion was served. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed 

Case 3:16-cv-02689-JD Document 39 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 4
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

“NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 

953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 

1988).

If defendant files a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust 

his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take 

note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided 

to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

Defendant’s reply brief is due 20 days after the opposition is served. 

The motion will 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. 

All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendant, or 

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 

defendants or defendants’ counsel.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No 

further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the parties 

may conduct discovery.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed 

of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of 

Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may 

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02689-JD Document 39 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 4
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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. 

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 Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts 

shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of 

material fact for trial. If you do not 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. 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking 

to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did 

exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations 

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents 

accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other

sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it is granted, 

your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 3:16-cv-02689-JD Document 39 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

CARLOS H. ALMEIDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK E. DUCART, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02689-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 21, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Carlos H. Almeida

G30247

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127 

Dated: May 21, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:16-cv-02689-JD Document 39 Filed 05/21/19 Page 4 of 4