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

WINSTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00098-JST (PR)

THIRD ORDER OF SERVICE ON 

DEFENDANT PIN-CHIEH CHIANG, 

DO; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: ECF No. 50, 51

Plaintiff, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility proceeding pro

se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding claims arising at Salinas Valley State 

Prison (“SVSP”), where he was previously incarcerated. On October 4, 2017, the Court screened

plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) and found that plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as against doctors L. 

Gamboa, J. Chudy, P. Chiang, and K. Kumar. Defendants Gamboa, Chudy, and Kumar were 

successfully served and have filed a motion for summary judgment. Efforts to serve defendant 

Chiang at SVSP have been unsuccessful. On October 15, 2018, the SVSP Litigation Coordinator 

informed the Court that defendant Chiang is a contract doctor and provided a current address. See

ECF No. 49. Accordingly, the Marshal will be directed to reissue service pursuant to the 

instructions below.

Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to 

defendants Gamboa, Chudy, and Kumar’s motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, 

the motion will be granted pursuant to the instructions below.

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall re-issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the second amended complaint in this matter (ECF No. 20), a copy 

of the Court’s October 4, 2017 service order (ECF No. 22), and a copy of this order upon Pin-
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

Chieh Chiang, DO at Management Solutions, LLC, 200 Pine Ave., Suite 600, Long Beach, 

CA 90802.

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

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendant Chiang

must file and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendant 

Chiang is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendant

Chiang must so inform the Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for summary 

judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely, and 

adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 

F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 

b. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 

instruction to file a joint opposition to defendants Gamboa, Chudy, and Kumar’s motion for 

summary judgment and defendant Chiang’s motion for summary judgment or other dispositive 

motion no later than 28 days from the date defendant Chiang’s motion is filed. Plaintiff 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. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the 

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

hearing will be held on the motion. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that 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 

 

1

If defendant Chiang asserts that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies 

as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendant Chiang must raise such argument in a motion for 

summary judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which 

held that failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, should be raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). 
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

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(c), 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) (en banc) (App. A).

(The Rand notice above does not excuse defendant Chiang’s obligation to serve said notice

again concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

4. Pursuant to plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 51), the Clerk shall send plaintiff copies of the 

original complaint (ECF No. 1), the first amended complaint (ECF No. 16), and the second 

amended complaint (ECF No. 20).

This order terminates ECF Nos. 50 and 51.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2018

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge