Fratus v. Webb

Background

John Fratus, identified as a state prisoner, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had previously been housed. The court had determined that the complaint stated legally cognizable claims and had ordered service on the named defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. The department reported that Nurse Yessenia Campos had not been served.

Order

The court ordered the clerk to mail Campos a notice of the lawsuit, requests to waive service of the summons, copies of the complaint and attachments, the earlier service order, and this order. The materials were to be sent to an address provided by the department and filed under seal. The court directed that the address not be disclosed to Fratus or the public.

The court explained that, under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant who does not waive service without good cause may have to pay the cost of formal service. The order also described the deadlines that would apply if service were waived.

No later than 91 days after the order was filed, the defendant was required to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims the court had found cognizable. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve some or all of the case. Any summary-judgment motion had to comply with Rule 56 and include adequate factual documentation. The court stated that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed. If the case could not be resolved through summary judgment, the defendant was directed to inform the court before the motion deadline.

Fratus’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion was filed, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court later ordered one. The court permitted discovery under the federal rules without requiring another order before discovery began.

Other Instructions and Disposition

The order required Fratus to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. It warned that failing to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b), but it did not dismiss the action. Judge Edward J. Davila’s order addressed service and future case procedures; it did not rule on the merits of the claims.