Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02095/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02095-6/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

Order Setting Briefing Schedule

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\02095Pittman_Defs.msj.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED FRED PITTMAN, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 13-02095 EJD (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OR NOTICE REGARDING

SUCH MOTION

Plaintiff, an California inmate, filed the instant civil rights action in pro se

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Francisco County Sheriff officials for use of

excessive force. (Docket Nos. 1 and 2.) Finding the complaint, when liberally construed,

stated cognizable claims, the Court ordered service upon Defendants Former Sheriff

Michael Hennessey, Deputy Lee and Deputy O’Conner. (Docket No. 8.) The Court

granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely with respect to

Plaintiff’s state claims, but denied without prejudice with respect to his federal claims. 

(Docket No. 30.) Plaintiff’s supplemental pleading filed on March 28, 2014, (Docket No

35), was deemed timely filed. 

On February 17, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary

judgment, and referred the matter the matter for mediation under the Pro Se Prisoner

Case 5:13-cv-02095-EJD Document 58 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 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

Order Setting Briefing Schedule

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\02095Pittman_Defs.msj.wpd 2

Settlement Program. (Docket No. 41.) On December 22, 2015, Magistrate Judge Nandor

J. Vadas reported that the parties were unable to reach an agreement. (Docket No. 57.) 

Defendants were advised that they may seek to file a motion for summary judgment

before the district court. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court sets forth the briefing schedule

below. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. No later than fifty-six (56) days from the date of this order, Defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the

cognizable claims in the complaint. 

a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform

the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’

motion is filed. 

a. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the

Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate

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

Woods, Nos. 09-15548 & 09-16113, slip op. at 7874. 

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

and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (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

Case 5:13-cv-02095-EJD Document 58 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 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

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\02095Pittman_Defs.msj.wpd 3

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent

by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and 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). 

3. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

4. The 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. 

5. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on

Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true

copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

DATED: EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge

2/5/2016

Case 5:13-cv-02095-EJD Document 58 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 3