Miller v. Uribe
- Wise
- 5:25-cv-07357
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Joseph Michael Miller v. Uribe, Judge Wise ordered renewed service and set deadlines; the court did not decide Miller’s constitutional claims.
The order directly affects Joseph Michael Miller, defendants Perez and Uribe, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Attorney General’s Office, the Clerk of Court, and the United States Marshals Service by assigning service and case-management duties and deadlines.
What happened
Joseph Michael Miller, a state detainee representing himself, sued Uribe and Perez under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional violations at Salinas Valley State Prison. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation could not locate officers with those names based on the incident date Miller originally provided, so Miller clarified that the incident occurred on October 5, 2021.
The court ordered that Uribe and Perez be served using the corrected information. It established procedures for electronic service, possible service waivers, and service by the United States Marshals Service if needed. It also set deadlines for defendants’ dispositive motion, Miller’s opposition, and any reply, and allowed discovery to proceed without another court order.
Judge Noél Wise issued the order on March 9, 2026. The order addressed service and case-management procedures only; it did not decide whether Miller’s constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Uribe · No. 5:25-cv-07357
- Wise
- Mar. 9, 2026
Background
Joseph Michael Miller, a state detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was imprisoned at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously ordered service of the complaint.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the court that it could not locate correctional officers named “Uribe” and “Perez” in the relevant prison unit based on October 15, 2021. Miller then notified the court that he had misstated the incident date and that the correct date was October 5, 2021.
Service Order
The court ordered that defendants Perez and Uribe be served using the information in Miller’s clarification letter. The Clerk of Court was directed to send the required documents to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation through its electronic-service pilot program for civil-rights cases brought by prisoners in its custody.
The department must provide a completed service-waiver report within 45 days after receiving the order by email. The California Attorney General’s Office must file service waivers for defendants who waive service within the time specified in the order. For any defendant who does not waive service, the Clerk must prepare the required forms and provide the documents to the United States Marshals Service for service. The Clerk must also mail Miller a copy of the order.
Briefing and Case Management
The court ordered defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion no later than 90 days after service. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the case or a claim. The motion must include adequate factual documentation and relevant records and incident reports. Defendants must also provide Miller the required notices explaining how to respond to a summary-judgment motion and, if applicable, a motion based on failure to complete required administrative procedures.
Miller’s opposition, if any, is due 28 days after the motion is served. Any reply is due 14 days after the opposition is served. The motion will be treated as submitted when the reply is due, and the court stated that no hearing will be held unless it later orders one.
The court also required Miller to serve defendants, or their counsel once counsel is designated, with copies of his communications to the court. The order states that the parties may conduct discovery without another court order. Miller must prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders; failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition
Judge Noél Wise ordered further service efforts and established a briefing schedule. The order did not rule on the merits of Miller’s constitutional claims, grant or deny summary judgment, or otherwise resolve the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.