Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01245/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01245-6/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

JIMMIE EARL STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAL WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01245-SI 

ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS 

MOTIONS AND SETTING SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60

This is a pro se prisoner's civil rights action in which the plaintiff paid the filing fee after 

the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to deny his in forma pauperis application. The matter is 

now before the court for consideration of several miscellaneous motions and to set a schedule to 

move this action toward resolution. 

A. Miscellaneous Matters

In an order filed June 18, 2015, the court stated that defendant De La Cruz would be 

dismissed on July 10, 2015, unless plaintiff filed a proof of service showing that he had 

accomplished service of process on De La Cruz or showed good cause for his failure to do so. 

Dkt. No. 50 at 4. Plaintiff did neither. Service of process was not accomplished on De La Cruz 

by the deadline. Plaintiff did file a response, but the court is unable to understand most of what 

plaintiff is attempting to convey in that response and concludes that the response did not show 

good cause for his failure to accomplish service of process. Dkt. No. 53. Defendant De La Cruz 

is now DISMISSED from this action. The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff filing a new 

action against De La Cruz if he ever finds the defendant and is able to serve process on him or her.

 

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 62 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default of defendants Espinosa, Alvarez and Honey is 

DENIED as meritless. Dkt. No. 54. Two weeks before plaintiff filed his motion, those defendants 

had filed a waiver of reply and demand for jury trial. Dkt. No. 52. No defendant was in default 

because of the unusual provisions in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1), which allows a defendant to "waive 

the right of reply" in a civil rights action filed by a prisoner, provides that such a waiver is not an 

admission of the allegations in the complaint, and disallows relief for the plaintiff unless a reply 

has been filed. The "reply" referred to in § 1997e(g) appears to be the answer to the complaint. If 

a defendant may waive the right of reply, he would not be in default for not filing one. 

Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents are DENIED. Dkt. Nos. 55 and 59. If 

plaintiff wants to attempt to obtain discovery, he must comply with the discovery rules in Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37. The court generally is not involved in the discovery process and 

only becomes involved when there is a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. 

Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy 

sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" 

be filed with the court until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only 

when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the 

parties even consider asking the court to intervene in the discovery process. The court does not 

have enough time or resources to oversee all discovery, and therefore requires that the parties 

present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote the goal of addressing only very 

specific disagreements (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that 

the parties meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N. D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a 

prisoner, the court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense 

counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although the format of the meetand-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in 

a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute. 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests should not have been filed with the court, and instead must be served 

on defendants by sending them to defense counsel. 

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 62 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff filed a “request order for affirmative defense to complaint issues FRCP # 8, 12.” 

Dkt. No. 57. The court is unable to understand exactly what relief plaintiff wants, but most likely 

plaintiff is asking that defendants be required to plead all their affirmative defenses. As so 

construed, plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Dkt. No. 57. Defendants opted to waive the right of 

reply (see Dkt. No. 52), and the court has not yet ordered defendants to file an answer. If and

when defendants are ordered to file an answer – which most likely will not occur unless and until 

this case makes it past the summary judgment stage – the defendants may plead any affirmative 

defenses in their answer. 

Plaintiff’s fourth motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED for the same reasons his 

third motion for appointment of counsel was denied. Dkt. No. 58; see Dkt. No. 50 at 1-2.

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiff is not 

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action for the reasons explained in the order denying 

pauper status filed on September 2, 2014. See Dkt. No. 20. 

B. Scheduling

In an earlier order, the court explained that a briefing schedule for dispositive motions 

would be set once plaintiff tended to serving process on the defendants. Dkt. No. 33 at 7. That 

time has arrived because service of process has been accomplished as to three defendants and the 

fourth defendant is being dismissed today. Accordingly, in order to move this action toward 

resolution, the following briefing schedule for dispositive motions is set:

1. No later than December 18, 2015, defendants must file and serve a motion 

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case 

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

the motion is due. If 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). 

 2. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than January 15, 2016. Plaintiff 

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 62 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this 

order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

3. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and 

served no later than January 29, 2016.

Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for motions 

for summary judgment:

The defendants may make 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 defendants' 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. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and 

there will be no trial. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 

he is seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if a 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the 

plaintiff's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01245-SI Document 62 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 4