Millen v. Morris
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-03986
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Millen v. Morris, Judge Illston ordered renewed service on M. Morris and set procedures and deadlines for later motions and discovery.
Jonathan Millen and M. Morris; the order also directed the clerk and the United States Marshal to take specified actions.
What happened
In Millen v. Morris, Jonathan Millen had provided a first initial identifying the lone defendant, M. Morris, after an earlier service attempt failed because the defendant was not sufficiently identified.
The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve M. Morris without requiring advance payment of fees. It also set deadlines for a possible motion for summary judgment or another case-ending motion, Millen’s response, and any reply, and authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Susan Illston also explained the evidence needed to oppose summary judgment, required the parties to send copies of filings to the opposing side, and reminded Millen to follow court orders and keep his address current.
The detailed version
- Millen v. Morris · No. 3:19-cv-03986
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 12, 2021
Background
Jonathan Millen had not previously been able to serve the lone defendant because the defendant was not sufficiently identified. Millen later provided the defendant’s first initial. The opinion identifies the defendant as correctional officer M. Morris, who apparently worked, or had worked in 2017, at the San Quentin State Prison Adjustment Center.
Service of process
The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons. It directed the United States Marshal to serve M. Morris with the summons, a copy of the complaint, the order of service, and the order itself without prepayment of fees.
Briefing schedule and warnings
The court set April 2, 2021, as the deadline for M. Morris to file and serve a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the case or a claim. If M. Morris filed a summary-judgment motion, he was required to provide Millen with a new notice explaining the summary-judgment procedures. Millen’s opposition was due May 7, 2021, and any reply was due May 28, 2021.
The court warned that summary judgment may be entered when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It explained that, if the defendant supports such a motion with sworn statements or documents, Millen could not rely only on his complaint; he would need to submit specific supporting evidence. The court gave the same warning for a possible motion based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Other directions
The court stated that Millen’s communications with the court had to be served on M. Morris or, once designated, M. Morris’s counsel. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. It also reminded Millen that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to update Millen’s address on the docket.
Disposition
This order addressed service, case-management procedures, discovery, and possible future motions. It did not decide the underlying claims or grant or deny a dispositive motion. Judge Susan Illston entered the order on January 12, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.