Thomas v. Smith
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-05617
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Thomas v. Smith, Judge Corley allowed Hilbert Thomas to proceed only on retaliation, dismissed his other claims with prejudice, and set summary-judgment deadlines.
Hilbert Thomas may continue the case only on his retaliation claim. The defendants must address that remaining claim and comply with the summary-judgment schedule.
What happened
In Thomas v. Smith, Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights case under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. After the court dismissed his First Amended Complaint and allowed him to file a Second Amended Complaint, Thomas chose not to do so.
The court granted Thomas’s motion to proceed only with the retaliation claim in his First Amended Complaint. It dismissed his other claims with prejudice. The court also ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion by July 14, 2025, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley issued the April 17, 2025 order. The order set August 11, 2025, for Thomas’s opposition and August 25, 2025, for the defendants’ reply, and said no hearing would occur unless the court later ordered one.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Smith · No. 3:23-cv-05617
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 17, 2025
Background
Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss Thomas’s First Amended Complaint had been granted and that Thomas had been allowed to file a Second Amended Complaint. The earlier order did not seek dismissal of Thomas’s retaliation claim.
Thomas instead filed a motion asking to proceed only with the retaliation claim in his First Amended Complaint. He stated that he did not intend to file a Second Amended Complaint.
Ruling
The court granted Thomas’s motion to proceed only with the retaliation claim in his First Amended Complaint. The court dismissed the other claims in that complaint with prejudice.
Next steps
The court ordered the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment by July 14, 2025. The motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and include adequate factual documentation and records and incident reports related to the events at issue. If the defendants believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment, they were required to inform the court before that deadline.
Thomas’s opposition, if any, was due August 11, 2025, and the defendants’ reply was due August 25, 2025. The motion would be considered submitted on the reply deadline, and no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.