Tamrat v. Marlowe
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-07623
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Tamrat v. Marlowe, Judge Hamilton dismissed all claims except excessive-force claims against Marlowe and Tamayo, and ordered service.
Herman Tamrat's case was narrowed to the excessive-force claim against Marlowe and Tamayo. All other claims and defendants were dismissed with prejudice, while the remaining claim was ordered served on those defendants.
What happened
In Tamrat v. Marlowe, Herman Tamrat, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights complaint under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The court had previously found that his complaint stated an excessive-force claim against Marlowe and Tamayo but dismissed his other claims and defendants with permission to amend.
Tamrat did not file an amended complaint before the deadline. The court therefore dismissed all claims and defendants with prejudice except the excessive-force claim against Marlowe and Tamayo. It ordered a summons issued and service of the complaint and order on those two defendants.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also set procedures for possible dispositive motions, responses, discovery, communications, and keeping the court informed of address changes. The order warned that failing to prosecute the case or follow court orders could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Tamrat v. Marlowe · No. 4:20-cv-07623
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Herman Tamrat, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had screened the original complaint. Screening is the court's initial review of whether a prisoner complaint may proceed. In its earlier order, the court found that Tamrat stated an excessive-force claim against defendants A. Marlowe and Tamayo. It dismissed the remaining claims and defendants but allowed Tamrat to amend his complaint.
The deadline to amend passed, and Tamrat did not file an amended complaint. He therefore continued only with the excessive-force claim identified in the court's earlier order, Docket No. 8.
Ruling and Case Management
The court ordered that all claims and defendants were dismissed with prejudice except the excessive-force claim against Marlowe and Tamayo. The court directed the clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve the complaint, attachments, and order on Sonoma County Sheriff Deputy A. Marlowe #2495 and Deputy Tamayo at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility, without requiring advance payment of service fees.
The order established procedures for any summary-judgment or other dispositive motion. Such a motion had to include adequate factual support and comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, including relevant records and incident reports. Defendants also had to provide required notices when serving a dispositive motion. Tamrat's opposition, if any, was due within 30 days after service, and any reply was due within 15 days after the opposition was served.
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. It required Tamrat to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel and to notify the clerk of any address change. The order warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not decide the merits of the remaining excessive-force claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.