Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03146/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03146-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

15-cv-3146 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

MARION LEE CROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHUCK ETCHISON; et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-3146 LB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

POSTPONE CASE

[Re: ECF Nos. 15, 16]

Marion Lee Cross filed this pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming

that he was assaulted by the defendant, Chuck Etchison, while Mr. Cross was taking part in the

Jericho House drug treatment program in Brisbane, California. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The court noted

doubts as to whether there was state action – a necessary element of a § 1983 claim – but liberally

construed the complaint to state a cognizable § 1983 claim against Mr. Etchison for excessive force

and ordered the complaint served. Mr. Etchison filed a motion for summary judgment in which he

argued that he did not assault Mr. Cross and that there was no state action.

Mr. Cross has sent to the court a letter asking if his action “could be postponed until [his] parole

from prison,” which he expected to occur on February 16, 2016. (ECF No. 16.) He stated that he

was having difficulties obtaining evidence (e.g., police reports, police statements, and witness

statements) to prove his claim that Mr. Etchison assaulted him. He did not mention any

Case 3:15-cv-03146-LB Document 17 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 3
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

1

Mr. Etchison also argued in his motion for summary judgment that he did not physically

assault Mr. Cross. Mr. Cross’s verified complaint alone is sufficient to withstand that argument. 

See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 & nn.10-11 (9th Cir. 1995) (treating plaintiff's

verified complaint as opposing affidavit where, even though verification not in conformity with 28

U.S.C. § 1746, plaintiff stated under penalty of perjury that contents were true and correct, and

allegations were not based purely on his belief but on his personal knowledge).

 

15-cv-3146 LB

ORDER 2

impediments in opposing the argument in the motion for summary judgment that there was no state

action. 

The court will not postpone the action until Mr. Cross’ release from prison based on the

information he has provided. A plaintiff is expected to prosecute an action once he files it, and his

failure to do so can be grounds for dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Mr.

Cross filed this action while he was in custody and should have been aware of the circumstances

from which he would be litigating. The defendant’s interest also must be considered: having been

hailed into court as a result of Mr. Cross’ complaint, Mr. Etchison is entitled to a reasonably prompt

resolution of the claim against him. The court also has an interest in not having cases and motions

linger on its docket without any progress toward resolution. Although Mr. Cross expects to be

paroled from prison in mid-February, that apparently would be only the beginning of his efforts to

request documents, locate witnesses and assemble an opposition to the motion for summary

judgment. He did not suggest when he might actually be ready to file his opposition. The

postponement thus could last several months beyond February 2016, and even longer if something

unexpected occurs in his living situation. 

In evaluating the request for postponement, the court also considers the strong possibility that

this case is in the wrong court. Although the court was required to liberally construe the pro se

complaint to allege state action, the court noted doubts about state action and Mr. Etchison has

moved for summary judgment on that very ground.1

 If there was no state action, Mr. Cross should

be pursuing his claim in state court rather than in federal court. This threshold issue can and should

be decided soon. Mr. Cross has not shown that it is necessary for him to be released from custody

before he can obtain evidence showing that there has been state action. 

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Cross’s request to postpone his action is DENIED. (ECF No.

Case 3:15-cv-03146-LB Document 17 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 3
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

15-cv-3146 LB

ORDER 3

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

16.) The court will give a limited extension of the deadlines on the pending motion for summary

judgment. Mr. Cross must file and serve his opposition to the motion for summary judgment no

later than December 4, 2015. Mr. Etchison must file and serve his reply in support of his motion for

summary judgment no later than December 18, 2015. The December 17, 2015 hearing date that was

set for the motion for summary judgment is VACATED. The motion will be decided based upon the

parties’ written submissions.

If Mr. Cross prefers to pursue his action at a later time, he may file a one-page “request for

voluntary dismissal” in which he states simply that he requests that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. If he files such a request, this action can be dismissed without prejudice to him filing a

new action at a later date when he is ready to pursue his claims, subject to any statute of limitations. 

Then he would be able to later file a new action in federal or state court, but would have to pay a

new filing fee. 

Mr. Cross also requested a lie detector test. That request is DENIED. (ECF No. 16.) The court

does not order or administer lie detector tests. Mr. Cross also recently filed a form on which he

purported to decline to proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 15.) That form is of no effect

because Mr. Cross earlier consented to proceed before a magistrate judge (ECF No. 1 at 4) and has

not shown good cause or extraordinary circumstances to support the withdrawal of that consent. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03146-LB Document 17 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 3