Reynolds v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Susan Illston
- 3:17-cv-04202
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Reynolds v. Merenda, Judge Illston ordered case-management statements to prepare the remaining excessive-force claim for trial.
Richard Lance Reynolds and J. Merenda, particularly their preparation for discovery and trial of the remaining excessive-force claim.
What happened
In Richard Lance Reynolds v. J. Merenda, the court said Reynolds, who is representing himself in prison, alleges that Merenda used excessive force twice on April 5, 2016. The court had already granted judgment against Reynolds on the handcuffing claim, leaving only the allegation involving an office at the prison.
The court ordered both parties to file and serve separate case-management statements by April 10, 2020. Each statement had to address remaining discovery, any planned motions, trial readiness, witnesses, experts, and—regarding Reynolds—his sentence and expected release date. The court also told Reynolds that he must arrange to pay witness fees and travel expenses for witnesses he wants to call, even though he is proceeding without paying court costs.
Judge Susan Illston entered this case-management order to move the case toward trial and obtain information needed to set discovery and trial dates. The order did not decide whether the remaining excessive-force claim was valid.
The detailed version
- Reynolds v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · No. 3:17-cv-04202
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
Reynolds, a self-represented prisoner, brought a civil-rights action alleging that J. Merenda used excessive force against him twice on April 5, 2016, at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. The court had previously granted summary judgment—a decision resolving a claim without a trial—on the allegation that Merenda used excessive force while handcuffing Reynolds. The only remaining claim concerned an alleged later use of excessive force in a prison office.
The parties had attended a settlement conference but apparently did not reach an agreement. The court stated that the case had been pending for more than two years and that it was time to move toward trial.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file and serve case-management statements by April 10, 2020. The statements could be prepared separately rather than jointly.
Each party had to describe specifically any remaining discovery, including planned subpoenas, depositions, document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admissions; propose a discovery schedule and cutoff date; identify any further motions; state when the party would be ready for trial; list unavailable dates during the next twelve months; estimate the trial length; identify intended trial witnesses and their expected testimony; and identify the types of expert witnesses the party intended to call.
Reynolds was also directed to state the length of his prison sentence and, if known, the date he expected to be released.
Witness Fees
The court informed Reynolds that he had to arrange payment of witness fees, expert-witness fees, and travel expenses for witnesses he intended to call at trial. The court explained that the law did not authorize it to waive those expenses for a person proceeding without paying court costs.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management order. It set information-gathering and trial-planning requirements but did not resolve the merits of the remaining excessive-force claim or set a specific trial date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.