Smith v. Diaz
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-04335
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Smith v. Diaz, Judge Gilliam set an evidentiary hearing on whether Smith exhausted administrative remedies.
C. Jay Smith and Ralph Diaz, et al., as the parties to the scheduled exhaustion hearing and case-management conference.
What happened
In C. Jay Smith v. Ralph Diaz, et al., the court reviewed the parties’ joint statement about a narrow issue: whether Smith completed the required prison grievance process.
The court scheduled an in-person evidentiary hearing for June 30 through July 2, 2025. It also scheduled an in-person case-management conference for June 3, 2025, to discuss witnesses and hearing logistics.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. set both proceedings under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement. The order did not decide whether Smith exhausted the required administrative remedies.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Diaz · No. 4:20-cv-04335
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 13, 2025
What the court ordered
After reviewing the parties’ joint statement, the court set an evidentiary hearing under the Ninth Circuit’s procedure described in Albino v. Baca. The hearing will address only whether Plaintiff exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion generally refers to completing the required administrative grievance process before pursuing the relevant claim in court.
Scheduled proceedings
The evidentiary hearing is scheduled to take place in person from June 30 through July 2, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 on the fourth floor of 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California.
The court also set an in-person case-management conference for June 3, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in the same courtroom and location. The parties were directed to be prepared to discuss the scope of their proposed witness lists and other hearing logistics, including whether witnesses would request to testify remotely.
Effect of the order
This is a scheduling and case-management order. It does not decide whether Plaintiff exhausted the required administrative remedies and does not resolve the underlying claims. The court entered the order on September 13, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.