United States District Court, N.D. California
WILLIAM E. BROWN, Plaintiff,
R. AMIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REOPENING ACTION Re: Dkt. No. 36
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge
February 4, 2016, plaintiff William E. Brown, a state
prisoner presently incarcerated at California State
Prison-Sacramento, filed this civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 regarding incidents that took place at
Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was
previously incarcerated. On December 29, 2016, the Court
screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and found
that, liberally construed, it stated cognizable religious
practice claims. The action was ordered served on three
defendants at PBSP.
order filed March 3, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff's
request to stay the instant action pending resolution of
competency proceedings related to a criminal case brought
against him in Del Norte County Superior Court. In said
order, the Court advised plaintiff that within thirty days of
the date the competency proceedings were concluded, he could
file a motion asking the Court to lift the stay.
has filed a motion requesting to proceed on his claims, which
the Court construes as a motion to lift the stay. Plaintiff
does not indicate whether competency proceedings have
concluded. It is nonetheless apparent that plaintiff seeks to
proceed with this action. Accordingly, the action will be
foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
Plaintiff's request to lift the stay is GRANTED, and the
Clerk shall reopen the file.
order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court
orders as follows:
later than 91 days from the date this order is filed,
defendants must file and serve a motion for summary judgment
or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims found
to be cognizable in the Court's December 29, 2016 order
of service. If defendants are of the opinion that this case
cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendants 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
Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other
dispositive motion must be filed with the Court and served
upon defendants no later than 28 days from the date the
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
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.
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 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(e), 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).
Rand notice above does not excuse defendants'
obligation to serve said notice again concurrently with a
motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at
communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on
defendants' counsel by mailing a true copy of the
document to defendants' counsel. The Court may disregard
any document ...