Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05308/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05308-4/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

MICHAEL ANGELO POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD L. MARLAIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05308-JST (PR) 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), 

where he is currently incarcerated. Plaintiff alleged that defendants Dr. Marlais and Dr. Calderon 

failed to properly treat his abscessed tooth in 2012 and 2013 and that defendant Dr. Uy failed to 

order proper follow-up treatment since that time. The Court found that, liberally construed, the 

complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs and ordered service upon defendants.

Subsequent to the Court’s order of service, the Court learned that defendant Calderon had 

retired and was no longer at CTF. Plaintiff was ordered to provide additional information so the 

United States Marshal could serve defendant Calderon. The Marshal later attempted to serve 

defendant Calderon at Valley State Prison for Women, where plaintiff indicated he could be 

located. However, this second summons on defendant Calderon was returned unexecuted. Court 

staff contacted CTF, and a confidential address was provided for defendant Calderon. By 

concurrent order, the Court will order service under seal to the confidential address.

In order to ensure adequate time for defendant Calderon to be served and for defense 

counsel to prepare a dispositive motion that addresses the claims against all three defendants, the 

Case 3:14-cv-05308-JST Document 39 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Court sua sponte extends the deadline for defendants to file a dispositive motion. Accordingly, 

the briefing schedule for dispositive motions set out in the Court’s August 4, 2015 order is 

VACATED, and the deadline for defendants to file their dispositive motion is CONTINUED to 

January 8, 2016. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendants’ motion within twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed. Defendants shall file their reply within fourteen (14)

days of the date the opposition is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05308-JST Document 39 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 2