Wilkins v. County of Contra Costa
- James Donato
- 3:16-cv-07016
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Wilkins v. Livingston, Judge Donato denied most plaintiff motions, granted a sur-reply, and stayed proceedings except discovery pending a dismissal motion.
Keenan G. Wilkins was affected by the denials of his motions, the permission to file a sur-reply, and the stay limiting filings to discovery. The defendants benefited from the stay, while the pending motion to dismiss remained undecided.
What happened
Keenan G. Wilkins, a state prisoner representing himself, brought this civil-rights case under a federal civil-rights statute. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully briefed but had not yet been decided.
The court denied Wilkins’s request to certify an immediate appeal, request for written depositions, motion to provide notice, and motion for summary adjudication. The court granted his motion to file a reply addressing new material. It also granted the defendants’ request to pause the case, except for discovery, until 14 days after the court decides the dismissal motion.
In Wilkins v. Livingston, Judge Donato denied the written-deposition and summary-adjudication motions without prejudice, meaning those requests could be renewed under the terms stated in the order. Wilkins could not file other documents during the stay unless they concerned discovery.
The detailed version
- Wilkins v. County of Contra Costa · No. 3:16-cv-07016
- James Donato
- Feb. 7, 2020
Background
Keenan G. Wilkins, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019. The motion was fully briefed, but the court stated that it would address it later. This order resolved several other motions.
Interlocutory-appeal request
Wilkins asked the court to certify for an immediate appeal the court’s earlier denial of his Monell claim at the screening stage. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the case is finished. The court found no controlling legal question with substantial grounds for disagreement and DENIED the certification request.
Written depositions
Wilkins asked for permission to take depositions by written questions from inmates at another prison. Because the proposed witnesses were incarcerated, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 required court permission unless the parties agreed otherwise. The court also explained that a deposition by written questions generally requires a deposition officer to administer and certify the responses, and that Wilkins had to show he could pay for those services. The defendants opposed the request and had not agreed to an alternative process. The court DENIED without prejudice the motion for written depositions.
The court stated that Wilkins could use a process under California regulations to correspond with the inmates. If that process failed and the witness information was necessary to the case, he could file another motion describing his efforts, why the process failed, and why the evidence was relevant. The court also stated that information from those witnesses was not relevant to the pending motion to dismiss.
Other motions
The court DENIED Wilkins’s motion to provide notice. It DENIED without prejudice his motion for summary adjudication, and stated that he could file a motion for summary judgment after the court ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. The court GRANTED Wilkins’s motion to file a sur-reply and stated that it would consider that filing.
Stay
The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings, except for discovery, until after the motion to dismiss was resolved. The case was stayed until 14 days after the court issued its decision on that motion. During the stay, Wilkins could not submit filings unless they concerned discovery.
Disposition
In Wilkins v. Livingston, Judge Donato denied the interlocutory-appeal certification request, denied the written-deposition motion without prejudice, denied the motion to provide notice, denied the summary-adjudication motion without prejudice, granted the motion to file a sur-reply, and granted the defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings except for discovery. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.