Stuckey v. Risenhoover
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-03780
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stuckey v. Risenhoover, Judge Rogers reopened the stayed civil-rights case after failed settlement and set deadlines for summary-judgment briefing.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey and the defendants are affected: the case was reopened, the defendants received a deadline to file a summary-judgment motion, and Stuckey received deadlines to respond and comply with service, address, and filing requirements.
What happened
Stuckey v. Risenhoover is a civil-rights case brought by Andre Kenneth Stuckey, who was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and represented himself. The court had referred the case to a prisoner mediation program and paused it while settlement discussions took place.
The parties did not reach an agreement. The court therefore lifted the pause and directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion within 60 days. Stuckey’s opposition is due 28 days after that motion, and the defendants’ reply is due 14 days after the opposition.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also reopened the case file and set other requirements, including serving communications on defense counsel, keeping the court informed of address changes, and requesting extensions before deadlines expire. The order did not decide the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. Risenhoover · No. 4:19-cv-03780
- Yvonne Rogers
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 9, 2020, the court referred this action and Stuckey’s other pending matters to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program and stayed the cases while global settlement proceedings were pending.
On February 11, 2021, Judge Robert M. Illman notified the court that the parties had been unable to reach an agreement. The court therefore addressed how the case would proceed.
Order
The court lifted the stay and ordered the Clerk to reopen the case file. It also set the following briefing schedule:
- Within 60 days after the order, the defendants must file a motion for summary judgment. The motion must include a notice explaining what Stuckey must do to oppose it. If the defendants believe the case cannot be resolved through summary judgment, they must notify the court before that deadline. - Stuckey must file and serve his opposition within 28 days after the defendants file their motion. - The defendants must file any reply within 14 days after the opposition is filed. The motion will be considered submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will occur unless the court later orders one.
The order directed Stuckey to follow the court’s January 31, 2020 order for further information about summary judgment and the claims remaining in the case. It also required Stuckey to serve every communication to the court on defense counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders on time. The court stated that it may dismiss a complaint without prejudice if court mail is returned as undeliverable and the pro se party does not provide a current address within 60 days. Requests for reasonable extensions based on good cause may be granted if filed on or before the deadline involved.
Disposition and Significance
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers lifted the stay, reopened the action, and set a briefing schedule. This procedural order did not rule on the underlying civil-rights claims or decide the summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.