Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-01140/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-01140-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

JACOB SILVERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-01140-KAW (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE ON 

UNSERVED DEFENDANT

This is a pro se civil rights action filed by pre-trial detainee Jacob Silverman. On 

December 1, 2017, this Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and found the allegations, 

liberally construed, appeared to give rise to cognizable claims under the Free Exercise Clause and 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) against all the named 

defendants and ordered service on all Defendants except the owner/manager of the Humboldt 

County Jail kitchen. The Court could not order service on the last defendant because Plaintiff had 

not provided the owner/manager’s name and address. The Court directed Plaintiff to provide this 

information within 28 days from the date of the order. On December 11, 2017, Plaintiff submitted 

a letter indicating that Armando Reyes is the manager of the Humboldt County Jail kitchen and his 

employment address is the Humboldt County Jail, 825 5th Street, Eureka, California 95501.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service 

of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the original petition 

(docket no. 1), amended complaint (docket no. 9), and all attachments thereto, a copy of the 

Court’s Order of Service (docket no. 13), a copy of this Order and a copy of the form “Consent or 

Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” to Armando Reyes, Manager of the Humboldt 

Case 4:17-cv-01140-KAW Document 19 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 5
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

County Jail kitchen at the Humboldt County Jail, 825 5th Street, Eureka, California 95501. This 

form can also be found at www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of 

this Order to the Office of the Humboldt County Counsel, and a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

2. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires him

to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant to 

Rule 4, if Defendant, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of 

Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fails to do so, he will be required to bear the cost of 

such service unless good cause be shown for his failure to sign and return the waiver forms. If 

service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on the date that the 

waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be required to serve 

and file an answer before sixty days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. (This 

allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is 

necessary.)

Defendant is advised to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that more 

completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If 

service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before Defendant has been personally 

served, the answer shall be due sixty days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent 

or twenty days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

3. Defendant shall file his Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on or 

before the date the answer is due.

4. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than thirty days from the date the answer is due, Defendant shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendant files a motion for 

summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in 

all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If Defendant is of the opinion that this case 

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date the 

summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on 

Plaintiff. Defendant shall coordinate with the other served Defendants in this case so that their 

Case 4:17-cv-01140-KAW Document 19 Filed 12/20/17 Page 2 of 5
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

motions can be filed in one brief.

At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, 

Defendant shall comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th 

Cir. 2012), and provide Plaintiff with notice of what is required of him to oppose a summary 

judgment motion. If the motion is based on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, Defendant

must comply with the notice and procedural requirements in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th 

Cir. 2014). See Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012).

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive 

motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than twenty-eight days after 

the date on which Defendant’s motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice 

should be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek 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 [in favor of the defendants], your 

case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read the notice that will be provided to 

him by Defendant when the motion is filed, and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must come 

forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his 

claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the burden of proving his allegations in this 

case, he must be prepared to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files his 

Case 4:17-cv-01140-KAW Document 19 Filed 12/20/17 Page 3 of 5
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

opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion. Such evidence may include sworn 

declarations from himself and other witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents 

authenticated by sworn declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment simply 

by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

The same evidentiary requirement applies if Defendant files a motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. To oppose this motion, Plaintiff must 

present any evidence he may have which tends to show that he did exhaust administrative 

remedies or was excused from doing so. Again, the evidence may be in the form of declarations, 

that is statements of fact from himself or other witnesses signed under penalty of perjury, copies of 

documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are 

authentic, or discovery documents such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. In 

considering a summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court 

can decide disputed issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. See generally Albino, 

747 F.3d at 1172-73; Stratton, 697 F.3d at 1008.

c. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen days after the date 

Plaintiff’s 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.

5. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. No further court order pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required before 

the parties may conduct discovery. 

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

of any change of address and 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).

7. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any 

motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than three days prior to the deadline sought 

Case 4:17-cv-01140-KAW Document 19 Filed 12/20/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-01140-KAW Document 19 Filed 12/20/17 Page 5 of 5