Brown v. Lieutenant Bass
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-00671
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Brown v. Bass, Judge Tigar ordered plaintiffs to respond to a proposal for a test case and administrative stays.
The eleven plaintiffs in the related cases and the defendants are affected. Each plaintiff must respond to defendants’ proposed case-management changes, and defendants must file the omitted administrative motion in Brown v. Lieutenant Bass.
What happened
Brown v. Lieutenant Bass and ten related cases concern an October 8, 2022 strip search at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. The defendants asked the court to change the schedules, select Pulido Segura v. Bass as a test case, pause the other cases, and set deadlines.
The court explained that a test case would proceed first while the other cases were paused, and that its outcome would not bind the other plaintiffs. Each plaintiff had to respond by February 28, 2025, addressing whether to use a test case, whether Pulido Segura should be selected, and whether to accept the proposed deadlines.
Judge Jon Tigar ordered the plaintiffs to file responses, directed defendants not to file a reply unless the court later requests one, and ordered defendants to file their administrative motion in Brown because it appeared to have been omitted. The court did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Lieutenant Bass · No. 4:23-cv-00671
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 30, 2025
Background
The court addressed eleven related civil-rights cases brought by plaintiffs proceeding without lawyers. The cases concern an October 8, 2022 strip search at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. The listed cases are Brown v. Lieutenant Bass, Young v. Bass, Michael LaRue Brown v. Bass, J. Isaac G. Sierra v. C. Bass, Ruben Duran Yepez v. C. Bass, Heriberto Hernandez Delossa, et al. v. Bass, Guillermo P. Hernandez v. C. Bass, Sergio A. Jimenez v. Bass, Daniel Dominguez v. C. Bass, Patricio Pulido Segura v. C. Bass, and Alfonso Mejia v. M. Taylor, et al.
Defendants filed an administrative motion asking the court to modify the scheduling orders in each case, use Pulido Segura as a bellwether case, administratively stay the remaining cases while that case proceeds, and set a dispositive-motion deadline for Pulido Segura. A bellwether case is a selected test case that proceeds first to discovery and, if appropriate, dispositive motions. The court explained that its result would not bind the other cases; it could instead provide information useful for settlement and later litigation.
Court’s directions
The court ordered each plaintiff to file a response by February 28, 2025. Each response had to address three questions:
- Whether the plaintiff agreed to selecting a bellwether case, understanding that a case not selected would be decided later.
- If the plaintiff agreed, whether Pulido Segura should be the bellwether case and, if not, which case should be selected.
- If the plaintiff agreed to a bellwether case, whether the plaintiff agreed to defendants’ proposed discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines, or what alternative deadlines the plaintiff proposed.
The court also allowed plaintiffs to raise other concerns about defendants’ motion. It directed defendants not to file a reply immediately. After reviewing the plaintiffs’ responses, the court would decide whether a reply was needed and what issues it should address.
The court further ordered defendants to file their administrative motion in Brown v. Bass because they appeared to have inadvertently omitted it from that case.
Disposition and classification
This was a procedural order about case management, discovery schedules, and possible administrative stays. The court did not decide the merits of any plaintiff’s civil-rights claims, did not select a bellwether case in this order, and did not grant or deny defendants’ administrative motion. The opinion refers to both April 25, 2024 and April 25, 2025 in discussing the proposed discovery deadline; the later numbered direction identifies April 25, 2025.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.