Zambrano v. Golding

Background

Juan Carlos Zambrano, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, brought this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that prison correctional officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment.

On August 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request for judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the result. Defendants also filed a proposed order granting their motion, as required by the Northern District of California’s local rules. The proposed order was not an order entered by the court, and the summary-judgment motion remained under submission.

Zambrano’s opposition was due September 10, 2020. In a letter received by the court on September 18, he stated that he had received the summary-judgment order, believed defendants had won, and had not had an opportunity to defend his case.

Ruling

The court construed Zambrano’s letter as a request for an extension of time to file his opposition and granted the request. The court clarified that it had not decided defendants’ motion and that judgment had not been entered for defendants.

Defendants were ordered to file a reply brief no later than 14 days after Zambrano files his opposition. The motion would be considered submitted when the reply was due, and the court stated that no hearing would be held. The supplied opinion text does not state the new deadline for Zambrano’s opposition.