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

2d Stipulation & [Proposed] Am. Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Defs.’ Dispositive Mot.

(C 09-2497 MHP (pr))

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney General of California

THOMAS S. PATTERSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

NEAH HUYNH

Deputy Attorney General

State Bar No. 235377

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5720

Fax: (415) 703-5843

E-mail: Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants Hill, Ingraham, Rivero, 

and Verdesoto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

THURSTON B. MCAFEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CURRY, et al.,

Defendants.

C 09-2497 MHP (PR)

SECOND STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER 

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ DISPOSITIVE MOTION

Judge: The Honorable Marilyn H. Patel

Plaintiff Thurston McAfee and Defendants (through their counsel) stipulate to the 

following revised deadlines for Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion.

Defendants’ dispositive motion is due September 7, 2010.

Plaintiff’s opposition is due October 7, 2010.1/

Defendants’ reply is due October 22, 2010. 

 1 Should Plaintiff need additional time to oppose dismissal, Defendants agreed not to 

oppose such a request. At Plaintiff’s option, he shall request more time with the Court by filing a 

motion or ask Defendants to file an amended stipulation and proposed order reflecting the 

requested extension. 

Case 3:09-cv-02497-EMC Document 23 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 5
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

2d Stipulation & [Proposed] Am. Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Defs.’ Dispositive Mot.

(C 09-2497 MHP (pr))

In support, the parties state the following:

(1) The parties are still conducting and responding to written discovery. For instance, 

Defendant Hill’s response to Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories is due August 12, 2010. 

(2) Defendants recently took photographs of the kitchen (including the dining halls where 

the riot occurred) and will forward them to Plaintiff as an attachment to an interrogatory. 

(3) Plaintiff is currently preparing questions for inmate-witness Cecil Davis, who is 

incarcerated at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California. Plaintiff is incarcerated 

at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California. Because inmates are not permitted to 

communicate with each other directly, Defendants agreed to ask the prison’s litigation 

coordinator to forward the questions (so long as the questions are relevant to the events at issue in 

this lawsuit) to Mr. Davis for a response. Should Mr. Davis respond, Defendants will forward 

such response to Mr. McAfee. 

(4) Thus, additional time is needed to conduct adequate discovery in preparation for 

Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion, including an anticipated opposition to that motion.

(5) This request is not made for any purpose of harassment, undue delay, or any improper 

reason.

(6) This request is the parties’ second stipulation concerning a briefing schedule for 

Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion. 

The parties so stipulate.

_8/2/10_______ __/s/ Thurston McAfee______________

 Date Thurston McAfee, Plaintiff in Pro Se

_8/2/10_______ __/s/ Neah Huynh__________________

 Date Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General

Counsel for Defendants

*****************

Case 3:09-cv-02497-EMC Document 23 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-02497-EMC Document 23 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 5
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

2d Stipulation & [Proposed] Am. Order Setting Briefing Schedule for Defs.’ Dispositive Mot.

(C 09-2497 MHP (pr))

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, it is so ordered.

_________________ _________________________________

 Date The Honorable Marilyn H. Patel

United States District Judge

SF2010400682; 20316045.doc

8/3/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-02497-EMC Document 23 Filed 08/03/10 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case Name: T. McAfee v. Curry, et al. No. C 09-2497 MHP (PR)

I hereby certify that on August 2, 2010, I electronically filed the following documents with the

Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:

SECOND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] AMENDED ORDER

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS’ DISPOSITIVE MOTION

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.

I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. On

August 2, 2010, I have mailed the foregoing document(s) by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid,

or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within three (3) calendar

days to the following non-CM/ECF participants:

Thurston McAfee (B-95737)

Ironwood State Prison

P. O. Box 2199

Blythe, CA 92226-2199

In Pro Se

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true

and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 2, 2010, at San Francisco,

California.

A. Navarro /s/ A. Navarro

Declarant Signature

SF2010400682

20320061.doc

Case 3:09-cv-02497-EMC Document 23 Filed 08/03/10 Page 5 of 5