Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01951-10/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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

NATHAN WENBERG, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER P. 

DELVILLAR, 

Defendant. 

Case No: C 13-1951 SBA (PR) 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Plaintiff Nathan Wenberg, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley 

State Prison (“SVSP”), filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative 

complaint is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Upon screening the FAC, the 

Court found the following Eighth Amendment claims cognizable: (1) an excessive force 

claim against Defendant SVSP Correctional Officer P. Delvillar stemming from his use of 

pepper spray on Plaintiff on July 31, 2011; (2) a deliberate indifference to medical needs 

claim against Defendants Delvillar, Doe #1, and Doe # 2 for failing to decontaminate 

Plaintiff; and (3) a deliberate indifference to medical needs claim against Defendants SVSP 

Physician L. Gamboa and Registered Nurses J. Krossa and R. Casusfla for denying Plaintiff 

an appropriate medical evaluation of his alleged slip-and-fall injuries. 

On February 6, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment as to the deliberate 

indifference claim against Defendants Gamboa, Krossa, and Casusfla. Dkt. 55. In the same 

order, the claims against Defendants Doe #1 and Doe #2 were dismissed from the action 

without prejudice. Id. at 8. Plaintiff was instructed that, in the event he is able to learn these 

Defendants’ identities through discovery, he may move to file a second amended complaint 

to add them as named defendants. Id. 

The Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Delvillar are the only remaining 

claims in this action. Because Plaintiff initially incorrectly identified Defendant Delvillar as 

“Devear,” service was only recently accomplished on this Defendant when he returned his 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 64 Filed 05/14/15 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

Waiver of Service of Summons form on May 6, 2015. Dkt. 62. This case has been pending 

for two years and there is no reason for further delay. Therefore, the parties shall abide by 

the following briefing schedule: 

1. Defendant Delvillar shall file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff an answer 

to the FAC no later than June 15, 2015. 

2. No later than sixty (60) days from the date the answer is due, Defendant 

Delvillar shall file a motion for summary judgment, which must be accompanied by a Rand1

notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him 

in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012). If 

Defendant Delvillar is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 

judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the summary judgment motion deadline. All 

papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff. 

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed with 

the Court and served on Defendant Delvillar no later than twenty-eight (28) days after 

Defendant Delvillar’s motion is filed. Plaintiff shall refer to the Court’s September 5, 2013 

Order of Service for a further explanation on summary judgment. Dkt. 11 at 8. 

4. Defendant Delvillar shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days 

after the opposition is filed. 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. 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 fourteen (14) days

prior to the deadline sought to be extended. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 5/13/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.13\Wenberg1951.DelVillarSchedOrder.docx 

 

1

 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 4:13-cv-01951-SBA Document 64 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2