Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00358/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00358-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILL MOSES PALMER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAWN HATTON; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-358 SI (pr)

ORDER (1) DENYING EARLAND'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND (2) SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

This case involves the use of force on plaintiff while he was at the Monterey County

Superior Court on July 16, 2004. The defendants include Monterey County sheriff's deputy

Vince Earland and several employees by the California Department of Corrections. Defendant

Earland is represented by the Monterey County Counsel's office and the CDC defendants are

represented by the California Attorney General's office. 

Defendant Earland filed a motion for summary judgment. He served a copy of the motion

on plaintiff but not on counsel for the CDC defendants, according to his proof of service. The

motion for summary judgment is DENIED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 5(a). (Docket # 29.) A party must serve a copy of any filing on everyone who has

appeared in this action, and not just the party against whom relief is sought. The denial of

Earland's motion is without prejudice to Earland filing another motion, provided that he serves

a copy of it on each party (or counsel for a party, if the party is represented by counsel). The

briefing schedule set at the end of this order applies to Earland as well as the CDC defendants.

Before it realized the service problem, the court had read Earland's and Palmer's briefs

concerning the summary judgment motion and had two observations that the parties may wish

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 57 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

to consider if a new motion is filed. First, to the extent Earland wants to argue he is not liable

on a theory that he failed to intervene to prevent a constitutional violation, he should discuss and

distinguish the failure-to-intervene case identified by the court, Robins v. Meacham, 60 F.3d

1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995). See Order of Service, p. 4. (The failure-to-intervene theory also has

been discussed by the Ninth Circuit in other cases, such as Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271,

1289-90 (9th Cir. 2000).) Second, the court is concerned about the apparent dispute about

whether Earland testified at a trial. Palmer recited at length the content of Earland's testimony

while Earland's attorney submitted a declaration stating that the trial record contains no

testimony from Earland. The court cannot determine from the record whether Earland did not

testify or perhaps did testify but his testimony was not transcribed. If Earland did not testify at

all, and Earland submits more direct proof of that (e.g., his own declaration and court minute

orders or other records showing he did not testify), the court will entertain a motion for

sanctions. 

The CDC defendants have filed an ex parte request for an extension of time to file a

dispositive motion. Upon due consideration of the request and the declaration of attorney Sara

Ugaz, the request is GRANTED. (Docket #54.) The court vacates the existing briefing schedule

and now sets the following briefing schedule for dispositive motions:

1. Defendants must file and serve their dispositive motions no later than April 6,

2007. If defendants are of the opinion that the case cannot be resolved by dispositive motion,

they must file and serve such a notice by the deadline.

2. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to each dispositive motion no later than

May 11, 2007. 

3. If defendants wish to file reply briefs, they must file and serve their reply briefs

no later than May 31, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 _____________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00358-SI Document 57 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2