Stuckey v. State of California
- Gonzalez Rogers
- 4:19-cv-05460
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stuckey v. State of California, Judge Gonzalez Rogers reopened the stayed civil-rights case, lifted the stay, and set deadlines for summary-judgment briefing.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey and the defendants, including Juliann Knight; the order reopened the case and imposed litigation deadlines and service requirements on the parties.
What happened
Stuckey v. State of California is a civil-rights case brought by Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, against Juliann Knight and other defendants. The court had previously paused the case for mediation and possible global settlement proceedings.
After Judge Robert M. Illman notified the court that the parties had not reached an agreement, the court lifted the stay and directed the clerk to reopen the case. It also ordered the parties to follow a schedule for a possible motion for summary judgment, responses, and a reply.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the defendants to file the motion within 60 days, required Stuckey to respond within 28 days after filing, and required any reply within 14 days after the response. The order also reminded Stuckey to serve court communications on defense counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and meet court deadlines.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. State of California · No. 4:19-cv-05460
- Gonzalez Rogers
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while proceeding without a lawyer. 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 took place.
On February 11, 2021, Judge Robert M. Illman notified the court that the parties had been unable to reach an agreement. The order therefore addressed the next steps in this case rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims.
Order
The court lifted the stay and directed the clerk to reopen the case file. It set the following briefing schedule:
- Within 60 days after the order, the defendants had to file a motion for summary judgment. The motion had to include a notice explaining to Stuckey what he needed to do to oppose it. If the defendants believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment, they were directed to inform the court before the filing deadline. - Stuckey’s opposition had to be filed and served within 28 days after the defendants filed their motion. The court directed him to consult the March 3, 2020 order for further information about summary judgment. - The defendants’ reply had to be filed within 14 days after Stuckey’s opposition. The motion would be treated as submitted when the reply was due, and no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.
The court also ordered that Stuckey serve defense counsel with copies of all communications he sent to the court. It reminded him that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders on time. The order noted that, under the cited local rule, the court may dismiss a complaint without prejudice if mail to a self-represented party is returned as undeliverable and the party does not provide a current address within 60 days. The court further stated that timely requests for reasonable extensions supported by good cause would be granted.
Disposition
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers lifted the stay, reopened the action, and set the briefing schedule. The order did not decide the merits of Stuckey’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.