Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00557/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00557-3/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

1

Claims against two other defendants, J. Marshall and H. McEnroe, were dismissed

for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO GUIZAR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. WOODFORD, et al., 

 

Defendants. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-0557 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY;

STAYING CASE; VACATING REFERRAL

TO PRO SE PRISONER MEDIATION

PROGRAM; VACATING DEADLINE FOR

SERVICE OF UNSERVED DEFENDANTS;

DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 33, 36, 38)

On February 7, 2005, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at

Corcoran State Prison (“Corcoran”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that prison

officials violated his constitutional rights by placing him in administrative segregation and,

eventually, the secured housing unit (“SHU”) after he was validated as a gang associate. On

July 26, 2005, the Court found the complaint, liberally construed, stated cognizable claims,

and ordered the complaint served upon twelve defendants.1

The United States Marshal (“Marshal”) successfully served seven defendants (“the

served defendants”), who jointly filed a motion for summary judgment. By order filed

Case 3:05-cv-00557-MMC Document 40 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 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

2

March 27, 2007, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding, inter alia, that

defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. With respect to the five unserved

defendants, specifically, Coziahr, Basso, Wohlwend, Pottieger and James, the order provided

that if plaintiff failed to either effectuate service upon them or provide the Court with their

accurate current location within 30 days, plaintiff’s claims against said defendants would be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Additionally, by said order, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for

the purpose of conducting, within 45 days, mediation proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se

Prisoner Mediation Program. Thereafter, on April 24, 2007, the served defendants filed a

notice of appeal of the Court’s March 27, 2007 order denying their motion for summary

judgment as to the issue of qualified immunity.

Now before the Court are several motions, which the Court addresses below in the

order of their filing.

1. On April 4, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s

motion is hereby DENIED as there are no exceptional circumstances warranting such

appointment. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (finding no

constitutional right to counsel in civil case).

2. Concurrently with their appeal, the served defendants filed a motion to stay all

proceedings in this action pending resolution of the appeal. An order denying a defendant’s

motion for summary judgment, although not a final order, nonetheless is immediately

appealable where the defendant is a public official asserting a qualified immunity defense

and the issue on appeal is whether the undisputed facts show a violation of “clearly

established law” as defined for purposes of such defense. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,

528 (1985). Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the

matters that are the subject of the appeal. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Southwest

Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, in light of the matters affected by

the served defendants’ appeal of the March 27, 2007 order, good cause exists to stay all

proceedings before this Court until such appeal is resolved.

Case 3:05-cv-00557-MMC Document 40 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, defendant’ motion to stay is hereby GRANTED. All proceedings in the

above-titled matter are hereby STAYED until the United States Court of Appeals issues its

mandate with respect to its decision on defendants’ appeal of the March 27, 2007 order. The

referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, as well as the deadline for plaintiff to

serve or provide the location of the unserved defendants, as ordered on March 27, 2007, are

hereby VACATED. 

3. In light of the stay, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in which to locate or

serve the unserved defendants is hereby DENIED as moot. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 33, 36 and 38.

The Clerk shall close the file for administrative purposes pending resolution of the

appeal.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00557-MMC Document 40 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3