Stuckey v. Howard
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-03691
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stuckey v. Howard, Judge Rogers reopened the case, lifted the stay, and set summary-judgment deadlines after settlement talks failed.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey and the defendants, because the stay was lifted, the case was reopened, and the parties received deadlines for briefing a possible summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner representing himself, brought this civil-rights case under Section 1983 against officials at Pelican Bay State Prison. The court had paused the case while the parties pursued settlement through a prisoner mediation program.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said the parties were unable to reach an agreement. The court therefore lifted the stay and ordered the clerk to reopen the case file.
Judge Rogers set deadlines for the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, Stuckey’s opposition, and the defendants’ reply. The order managed the case and did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. Howard · No. 4:19-cv-03691
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, identified as a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several Pelican Bay officials. The opinion describes the complaint as alleging various violations of his federal civil rights.
On December 8, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ attorney’s request to refer this action and Stuckey’s other pending matters to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The court stayed the cases while the parties pursued a possible global settlement.
Ruling and schedule
After Judge Robert M. Illman notified the court on February 11, 2021, that the parties had been unable to reach an agreement, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers lifted the stay and directed the clerk to reopen the case file. The court did not decide the merits of Stuckey’s civil-rights claims in this order.
The court ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion within 60 days of the order, accompanied by a notice explaining what Stuckey must do to oppose the motion. Stuckey’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion is filed, and the defendants’ reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be treated as submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.
The order also requires Stuckey to serve copies of his communications with the court on defense counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, comply with court orders, and prosecute the case. The court stated that requests for reasonable extensions based on good cause will be granted if filed by the deadline the party seeks to extend.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.