Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04438/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04438-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

TITO DAVID VALDEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES TILTON; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-4438 SI (pr)

ORDER

This matter is now before the court for consideration plaintiff's "motion to alter or amend

judgment (motion for reconsideration)," plaintiff's request to have the case referred to a

settlement program, and defendants' request for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion.

Plaintiff's "motion to alter or amend judgment (motion for reconsideration)" of the

dismissal of the due process claim in the December 18, 2006 Order of Service is DENIED.

(Docket # 11.) As a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e), the motion fails because no judgment has been entered. As a motion for

reconsideration, the motion fares no better because plaintiff has not met any of the criteria for

reconsideration: he does not present newly discovered evidence, the court did not commit clear

error or make a manifestly unjust decision, and there has not been a change in controlling law.

See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff filed a letter and two motions (Docket # 19 and # 21) indicating his interest in

participating in a "pro se early settlement program." Defense counsel filed a letter indicating that

defendants did not believe an early settlement program or other alternative dispute resolution

program would be beneficial at this time because they expect the case to be resolved by

dispositive motion. The court declines to refer this case to a magistrate judge for settlement

Case 3:06-cv-04438-SI Document 27 Filed 04/03/07 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

purposes at this time. The denial is without prejudice to the court considering such a referral

later, if this case proceeds past the summary judgment stage. 

Defendants have filed an ex parte request for a sixty-day extension of time to file a

dispositive motion. Upon due consideration of the request and the accompanying declaration

of attorney Lisa Sciandra, the court GRANTS the request. (Docket # 15.) 

1. Defendants must file and serve their motion for summary judgment or other

dispositive motion no later than May 4, 2007. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

2. Plaintiff must file and serve on defense counsel his opposition to the

summary judgment or other dispositive motion no later than June 8, 2007. 

3. Defendants must file and serve their reply brief, if any, no later than June

22, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04438-SI Document 27 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2