Filed: Mar. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER OF SERVICE FOR DEFENDANT DR. CHUDY LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). On October 4, 2017, the court issued an order of service for defendants Dr. L. Gamboa, K. Kumar, and Dr. J. Chudy. On January 31, 2018, attorney for defendants Gamboa and Kumar filed a declaration indicating that that Dr. Chudy no longer worke
Summary: ORDER OF SERVICE FOR DEFENDANT DR. CHUDY LUCY H. KOH , District Judge . Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). On October 4, 2017, the court issued an order of service for defendants Dr. L. Gamboa, K. Kumar, and Dr. J. Chudy. On January 31, 2018, attorney for defendants Gamboa and Kumar filed a declaration indicating that that Dr. Chudy no longer worked..
More
ORDER OF SERVICE FOR DEFENDANT DR. CHUDY
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). On October 4, 2017, the court issued an order of service for defendants Dr. L. Gamboa, K. Kumar, and Dr. J. Chudy. On January 31, 2018, attorney for defendants Gamboa and Kumar filed a declaration indicating that that Dr. Chudy no longer worked at SVSP. Dkt. No. 33. On February 9, 2018, the court directed plaintiff to file a notice providing the court with location information for defendant Dr. Chudy such that the Marshal could effect service. Dkt. No. 39. Plaintiff has filed a notice providing the address to Dr. Chudy's place of employment. Dkt. No. 44. Accordingly, the court orders as follows:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail to defendant Dr. J. Chudy, at Nationwide Medical, 29903 Agoura Rd., Agoura Hills, California 91301, the following documents: a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint, a copy of the court's order of service dated October 4, 2017, a copy of this order, and a current docket of proceedings in this case. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to plaintiff.
2. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires him to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendant, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fails to do so, he will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, defendant will be required to serve and file an answer within sixty (60) days from the filing date of this order. Defendant is asked to read the statement set forth at the bottom of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before defendant has been personally served, the Answer shall be due within sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the executed waiver form is filed, whichever is later.
3. No later than sixty (60) days from the filing date of this order, defendant shall file a comprehensive motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the cognizable claims in the complaint. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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). Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
4. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and served on defendant no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendant's motion is filed. Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim).
5. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiff's opposition is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.