Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

LINDA CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 99-4190 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION

On September 10, 1999, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California

Training Facility (“CTF”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In reviewing the complaint in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A, the Court found plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim that defendants A.

Griffin, Gary A. Craft, and J.A. Soares violated his constitutional right of access to the

courts. The Court thereafter granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s separate due

process claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

appealed both dismissals. In an opinion filed February 21, 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed

as to plaintiff’s due process claim and remanded as to the right-to-access claim, with the

following findings:

Taylor alleged that the state court appointed an investigator to aid him in his

state habeas proceeding, that he had the permission of the warden for

confidential legal visits with the investigator, that prison personnel nevertheless

refused to mail his correspondence, that he grieved the refusal and prevailed

and that prison personnel still refused to mail his letter to the investigator. 

These allegations are sufficient to survive review under the screening provision

and require the government to respond. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 99 Filed 05/25/06 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

Defendants may file a joint motion or separate motions.

2

Accordingly, pursuant to the order of the Ninth Circuit, the Court hereby orders as

follows:

1. In order to expedite the resolution of this case,

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion1

. The motion shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified

immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If defendants are of the opinion that

this case cannot be resolved by dispositive motion, they shall so inform the Court prior

to the date their dispositive motion is due. 

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the

Court and served on defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date defendants’

motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to

plaintiffs:

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. 

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 99 Filed 05/25/06 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

3

If summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants, your case

will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) (holding

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 failure to

file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a

consent by plaintiff to the granting of the motion and the granting of judgment against

plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per

curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

d. The dispositive 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. 

2. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

3. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2006

________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 99 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3