Deaton v. Diaz
- 5:24-cv-04328
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Deaton v. Diaz, the court dismissed all defendants except Jose Diaz and ordered service on him over a Fourteenth Amendment meals claim.
Herbert N. Deaton’s case continues against Jose Diaz, identified in the order as the Aramark Food Director at San Francisco County Jail #3. All other defendants were dismissed. The order also sets procedures affecting Deaton and the defendants as the case proceeds.
What happened
Herbert N. Deaton, a pretrial detainee representing himself, sued staff at San Francisco County Jail #3 under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found that his complaint stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Jose Diaz for denial of meals, while dismissing the remaining claims and defendants with permission to amend.
Deaton did not file an amended complaint or otherwise contact the court before the amendment deadline. The court therefore allowed the case to continue against Diaz and dismissed all other defendants. It ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve Diaz with the complaint and the order without requiring Deaton to pay service fees.
The court also set deadlines for a possible dispositive motion, Deaton’s opposition, and any reply; allowed discovery under the federal rules; and warned that failing to follow court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court, whose judge’s name is not clearly readable in the opinion text, issued the order on April 1, 2025.
The detailed version
- Deaton v. Diaz · No. 5:24-cv-04328
- Apr. 1, 2025
Background
Herbert N. Deaton, a pretrial detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at San Francisco County Jail #3. The court previously found that the complaint stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Jose Diaz based on the denial of meals. It dismissed the remaining claims and defendants with leave to amend, meaning Deaton was given an opportunity to provide more information.
The deadline to amend passed, and Deaton did not file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the court.
Ruling and case status
The court ordered that the case continue against Jose Diaz. It dismissed all other defendants. The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve Diaz with the complaint, its attachments, and the order without requiring advance payment of service fees.
The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Deaton’s meal-denial claim. Instead, it set procedures for the case to move forward. Within 60 days after service, Diaz must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, unless he informs the court that summary judgment cannot resolve the case. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve some or all of the case. The order requires the motion to include adequate factual support and to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 if it is a summary-judgment motion.
At the same time the motion is served, defendants must provide the notices required for a self-represented prisoner opposing summary judgment or a motion based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Deaton’s opposition, if any, is due 28 days after service of the motion. Any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be treated as submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.
Other directions
Deaton must serve defendants, or their counsel once counsel is designated, with copies of all communications sent to the court. The parties may conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without obtaining another court order. Deaton must promptly notify the Clerk of any address change and comply with court orders. The court warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.