Montes v. Miller
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-07229
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Montes v. Miller, Judge Tigar reopened the case, vacated its dismissal, and set deadlines for further motions.
Giovanni Montes, who must keep the court informed of his address and meet the case deadlines, and Miller, who must respond under the briefing schedule.
What happened
In Montes v. Miller, Giovanni Montes filed a civil-rights case without a lawyer under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The court had twice dismissed the case without prejudice because mail was returned as undeliverable and Montes had not provided a current address.
Montes later told the court that he wanted to continue the case, was housed at Kings County Jail, and had not received some mail. The court treated his letter as a request to reopen the case and found good cause to grant it.
Judge Tigar granted the request, ordered the Clerk to vacate the earlier dismissal and related judgment, reopened the case, and set deadlines for dispositive motions. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims. It also warned that future dismissals for failing to provide a current address will be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Montes v. Miller · No. 4:22-cv-07229
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 30, 2024
Background
Giovanni Montes filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case had been closed twice because Montes did not provide the court with a current mailing address. The first dismissal, on May 2, 2023, was without prejudice under Northern District of California Local Rule 3-11. The court later reopened the case, but dismissed it again on March 28, 2024, for failure to provide a current address.
The court received a November 2024 letter from Montes stating that he wanted to continue the case, that he was then housed at Kings County Jail, and that he had been there for five to seven months. He also stated that Sonoma County Jail had been throwing away his mail. The court treated the letter as a request to reopen the action.
Ruling
The court found good cause and granted the motion to reopen, ECF No. 31. It directed the Clerk to vacate the order of dismissal and related judgment at ECF Nos. 28 and 29 and to reopen the case. The order did not resolve the merits of Montes’s civil-rights claims.
Briefing Schedule and Instructions
The court ordered Miller to file and serve a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days from the order’s filing date. If Miller believed the case could not be resolved by summary judgment, Miller had to inform the court before that deadline. Any summary-judgment motion must include a notice explaining to Montes what is required to oppose it.
Montes’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion is filed, and Miller’s reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held. The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another order before discovery begins.
The court warned Montes that he must promptly file a notice of address change in every pending case whenever he moves to a new facility. Failure to do so may lead to dismissal under Local Rule 3-11 or for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court stated that any future dismissal for failure to provide a current address will be with prejudice because the case has already been dismissed twice on that ground. The order also required Montes to send copies of his court filings to Miller or Miller’s counsel and to include the case name and number on documents submitted in this case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.