Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05088/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05088-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freemen
Defendant
Labans
Defendant
Luiz Muratalla-Lua
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIZ MURATALLA-LUA

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Correctional Officer LABANS and

Correctional Officer FREEMEN, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5088 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order the

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has amended. 

DISCUSSION

The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because plaintiff did not even

mentioned defendant Freeman. In the amended complaint he says that Freeman participated in

the abuse of him by Labans which has already been found to be sufficient as to Labans. The

amended complaint therefore will be served on both defendants.

CONCLUSION

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, copies of the amended complaint in this matter and copies of this order

upon the following defendants: Correctional Officers Labans and Freeman. Plaintiff states that

they can be found at Pelican Bay State Prison. 

Case 3:07-cv-05088-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by

adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the

events at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, they shall so inform the court prior to the date their summary judgment motion is

due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date of service of the

motion. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is

provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc),

and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, Alameida v. Wyatt, 124 S.Ct 50 (2003).

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen

days after the date of service of the opposition. 

d. 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. 

3. 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.

4. It is the 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

Case 3:07-cv-05088-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\MURATALLA-LUA5088.SRV.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-05088-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3