Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00975/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00975-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00975 NODJ GSA (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

AS DEFENDANTS PER PARTIES’ JOINT 

STIPULATION

(ECF No. 27)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED FILING

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 23, 2024, 

INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 18)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

RESPONSES REGARDING REPRESENTED 

DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFF’S 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

PARTIES’ RESPONSES DUE BY JANUARY 

30, 2024

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 01/23/24 Page 1 of 7
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

FANCY MOORE LIPSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00976 NODJ GSA (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 

AS DEFENDANTS PER PARTIES’ JOINT 

STIPULATION

(ECF No. 24)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED FILING

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 23, 2024, 

INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 16)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

RESPONSES REGARDING REPRESENTED 

DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFF’S 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

PARTIES’ RESPONSES DUE BY JANUARY 

30, 2024

CRYSTAL GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01323 NODJ GSA (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 

AS DEFENDANTS PER PARTIES’ JOINT 

STIPULATION

(ECF No. 17)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF 

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 01/23/24 Page 2 of 7
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

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED FILING

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 23, 2024, 

INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 8)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

RESPONSES REGARDING REPRESENTED

DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFF’S 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

PARTIES’ RESPONSES DUE BY JANUARY 

30, 2024

ROXANNE PURDAGONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01324 NODJ GSA (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 

AS DEFENDANTS PER PARTIES’ JOINT 

STIPULATION

(ECF No. 14)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY 

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED FILING

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 23, 2024, 

INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 6)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

RESPONSES REGARDING REPRESENTED

DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFF’S 

SERVICE OF PROCESS

PARTIES’ RESPONSES DUE BY JANUARY 

30, 2024

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 01/23/24 Page 3 of 7
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

4

The above matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. These matters are currently at the pleading phase of 

the proceedings.

I. JOINT STIPULATIONS

In each of the above referenced four cases, the respective Plaintiffs and two of the named 

Defendants (State of California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”)), have signed and filed joint stipulations indicating that they have met and conferred 

about the allegations and claims in each case. The stipulations agree to the dismissal of 

Defendants State of California and CDCR. The joint stipulations also agree that the respective

Plaintiffs will file amended complaints and that Defendant, Assistant Warden Pallares, will file a

response to them. Additionally, the stipulations request the Court to vacate the existing

scheduling conferences in each case and to reset them to a date after Defendant Pallares has filed

a response to the anticipated amended complaints. In support of their request to vacate the 

current scheduling conference, the parties assert that because of their agreed upon changes initial 

disclosures cannot be made, nor can a case schedule be determined and created.

II. COURT CONSIDERATIONS

A. Representation of Remaining Defendants and Status of Service Upon Defendants

1. Representation of Remaining Defendants

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that on June 29, 2023, it issued an order in Stith

v. Green, No. 1:23-cv-00947 NODJ GSA (“Stith”), which severed from it multiple Plaintiffs who 

were listed in the case caption of that action. See Stith, ECF No. 9. By last name, these Plaintiffs 

are: Stith, Green, Carroll, Robertson, Lipsey, and Hart. See id. As a result, new separate cases

were opened for these respective Plaintiffs. For Plaintiffs Robertson and Lipsey they were 

assigned case numbers 1:23-cv-00975, and 1:23-cv-00976, respectively. In addition, and 

applicable to this order, in September 2023, two other Plaintiffs, Graham and Purdagone (last 

names), who were not named plaintiffs in the Stith case, filed separate individual actions, case 

numbers 1:23-cv-01323 and 1:23-cv-01324, respectively.

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 01/23/24 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Currently, in the Robertson, Lipsey, Graham and Purdagone cases, the named defendants 

are all the same, namely: the State of California, CDCR, Acting Warden Michael Pallares, and

Officer Greg Rodriguez. Additionally, in all four cases, the Office of the Attorney General 

(“OAG”) has only filed notices of appearances on behalf of two of the named defendants: the 

State of California and CDCR. However, in each of the joint stipulations, in a footnote, the OAG

states: (1) that it does not anticipate representing Defendant Greg Rodriguez, and (2) that it will 

accept service of the respective amended complaints on behalf of Defendant Michael Pallares.

The Court can only presume that this means that the OAG will be representing Defendant 

Pallares in all four matters. However, because no notices of appearance have been filed by the 

OAG on behalf of Defendant Pallares, the OAG will be ordered herein to: (1) inform the Court 

whether it will, in fact, be representing Defendant Pallares, and (2) file notices of appearance on 

behalf of Defendant Pallares if it will be.

2. Status of Service on Remaining Defendant

The Court also notes that to date, none of the Plaintiffs in the four cases referenced herein 

have filed proofs of service of summons and complaint for Defendant Rodriguez. Therefore, 

Plaintiffs will also be ordered to inform the Court whether they wish to dismiss Defendant 

Rodriguez, or if not, when Plaintiffs anticipate Defendant Rodriguez will be served.

B. Joint Stipulation

As for the joint stipulations filed in the above referenced cases, the Court anticipates 

signing them, and by this order will adopt them. The parties are informed, however, that 

currently these matters have a “NODJ” designation, meaning that a District Judge has yet to be 

assigned to them. As a result, the Court will not be setting pretrial and trial dates in these actions

until either: (1) a District Judge is assigned, or (2) the parties consent to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction.

The parties are further informed that because there is currently no District Judge assigned 

to this case, nor consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, when these cases reach the stage where 

the issuance of discovery and scheduling orders is appropriate, the Court will initially issue only

limited ones that will address matters such as discovery deadlines, dispositive motion deadlines, 

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 01/23/24 Page 5 of 7
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

6

etc. These orders will issue sua sponte, without a court hearing. The Court will not formally seek 

input from counsel regarding the dates selected within the orders. Counsel however are welcome 

to inform the Court in advance of dates they will be unavailable in situations where their 

appearance will be required.

Accordingly, good cause appearing, and consistent with the parties’ joint stipulations filed 

January 16, 2024, in Robertson, No. 1:23-cv-00975 (ECF No. 27); Lipsey, No. 1:23-cv-00976 

(ECF No. 24); Graham, No. 1:23-cv-1323 (ECF No. 17), and Purdagone, No. 1:23-cv-1324 (ECF 

No. 14), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants State of California and California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation are hereby DISMISSED from the above referenced matters, without prejudice;

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order – February 22, 2024, – Plaintiffs shall 

file and serve the agreed upon amended complaints;

3. Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ amended complaints shall be filed and served

within thirty days of Plaintiffs filing their respective amended complaints, and

4. All scheduling conference currently set in the above referenced cases,1are hereby 

VACATED, and will be reset at a later date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by January 30, 2024, – the following shall occur:

1. The Office of the Attorney General shall:

a. Inform the Court whether it will, in fact, be representing Defendant Pallares;

b. File appropriate notices of appearance on behalf of Defendant Pallares if it will 

be representing him;

2. Plaintiffs shall:

a. Inform the Court whether they wish to dismiss Defendant Rodriguez, and if not,

b. Inform the Court by which date they anticipate serving Defendant Rodriguez, 

1

 See Robertson, No. 1:23-cv-00975, ECF No. 18 (initial scheduling conference set by Judge 

Boone for January 23, 2024); Lipsey, No. 1:23-cv-00976 (ECF No. 16) (initial scheduling 

conference set by Judge Boone for January 23, 2024); Graham, No. 1:23-cv-01323, ECF No. 8 

(initial scheduling conference set by Judge McAuliffe for February 27, 2024); Purdagone, No. 

1:23-cv-01324, ECF No. 6 (scheduling conference set by Judge Oberto for February 15, 2024).

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 01/23/24 Page 6 of 7
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

7

and

c. File a proof of service with the Court in each of these cases once Defendant 

Rodriguez and any DOES have been served.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 01/23/24 Page 7 of 7