UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 12, 2010
DENNIS GRIMES, CDCR #V-90377, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES E. TILTON; A. FAVILA; S. JUAREZ; STEVE FRANCIS; ALAN HERNANDEZ; GEORGE GIURBINO; V.M. ALMAGER; DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge
ORDER DISSOLVING STAY AND ISSUING BRIEFING SCHEDULE REVEREND
On May 18, 2009, this Court issued an Order granting an application to stay the action pending Defendants' interlocutory appeal of the Court's order denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
On June 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum affirming the District Court's denial of Defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds based on Plaintiff's claim under the Religious Land Use and Personalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). The Ninth Circuit remanded the issue of whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's First Amendment claim. The formal mandate was issued on July 9, 2010.
The Court hereby DISSOLVES the stay in this matter issued on May 18, 2009. Defendants are ordered to file supplemental briefing to their original motion for summary judgment relating to the issue of qualified immunity on Plaintiff's First Amendment claims only. This supplemental briefing must by filed with the Court and served on Plaintiff no later than Friday, August 28, 2010. Plaintiff must then file and serve either an Opposition or a Notice of Non-Opposition no later than Friday, September 17, 2010. Plaintiff is also directed to refer to the Court's Order dated August 7, 2008 providing Plaintiff with notice of the rules and ramifications of a Rule 56 motion pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). No reply brief is necessary. The Court will then take the matter under submission and will issue its written opinion soon thereafter. Thus, unless otherwise ordered, no appearances are required and no oral argument will be heard.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.