Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02431/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02431-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

CHARLES ANDERSON MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 

(CDCR), et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02431-EMC 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Docket Nos. 70, 77

The order of service stated that, “[i]f Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, 

Defendants must provide to plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures 

at the time they file such a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012).” 

Docket No. 30 at 12. Defendants Schultz and Troup filed a motion for summary judgment 

(Docket No. 70) that was not accompanied by a Rand notice. The failure to comply with the Rand

notice requirement subjects a ruling granting summary judgment to reversal. See, e.g., Nelson v. 

Peck, Ninth Cir. No. 12-16805 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2016) (provision of Rand notice at outset of case 

but not concurrently with the motion for summary judgment was reversible error). To avoid the 

possibility of such a reversal, the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Schultz and 

Troup is DENIED for failure to provide the Rand notice. (Docket No. 70.) The denial of the 

motion for summary judgment is without prejudice to these Defendants filing a new motion for 

summary judgment that is accompanied by a Rand notice. 

Plaintiff filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment in which he pointed out 

the absence of a Rand notice. (Docket No. 72.) His familiarity with the Rand notice suggests that 

giving the notice at the time of filing a motion for summary judgment is only a formality in this 

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 79 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

case, but the Ninth Circuit does require such a notice in any case where the plaintiff is a prisoner 

proceed pro se. In that same filing, Plaintiff objected to Defendants Schultz and Troup filing more 

than one summary judgment motion and stated that, if the court allows them to file another similar 

motion for summary judgment, “plaintiff will promptly notice the voluntary dismissal, without 

prejudice, of defendant Schultz in this action [only].” (Id. at 4.) The Court will permit a second 

motion for summary judgment, as there is no reason to hold a trial if there are not genuine issues 

of fact necessitating a trial. Plaintiff suffers from no unfair prejudice from a new filing if the first 

motion is disregarded.

The Court is concerned about Plaintiff waiting to dismiss a defendant. If Plaintiff believes 

Defendant Schultz should be dismissed, Plaintiff should file that dismissal promptly. His 

statement that he is going to wait to file that dismissal suggests a sort of gamesmanship that wastes 

time and resources of Defendant and the Court. Plaintiff is cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11 allows for sanctions against unrepresented parties as well as attorneys for various 

sorts of misconduct, including submitting filings for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause 

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

The Court now sets the following briefing schedule for a new or renewed motion for 

summary judgment from Defendants Schultz and/or Troup. Defendants Schultz and/or Troup 

must file and serve the motion for summary judgment with a Rand notice no later than 

December 23, 2016. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment no later than January 20, 2017. Defendant Schultz and/or Troup must file and serve the 

reply (if any) no later than February 3, 2017.

Defendants CDCR, Ahmed, Bright, DeLuna, Hall, Posson and Williams, and Plaintiff 

submitted a stipulated request for a modification of the briefing schedule for summary judgment 

motions. Upon due consideration, the request is GRANTED. (Docket No. 77.) Defendants must 

file and serve their motion for summary judgment with a Rand notice no later than February 28, 

2017. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the motion for summary judgment no later 

than April 14, 2017. Defendants must file and serve the reply (if any) no later than April 28, 

2017.

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 79 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Olga Beregovskaya. (Docket No. 76.) 

Accordingly, Olga Beregovskaya is DISMISSED from this action. 

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 70 and 77.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02431-EMC Document 79 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 3