Moore v. Salinas Valley State Prison
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-01019
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Moore v. Salinas Valley State Prison, Judge Davila ordered service on Melissa Stolsig and set deadlines for motions in the ongoing civil-rights case.
Kevin Moe Moore and the defendants in his remaining civil-rights claims, particularly Melissa Stolsig, who was ordered to receive separate service.
What happened
Moore v. Salinas Valley State Prison is a civil-rights case brought by Kevin Moe Moore, a state prisoner representing himself, under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. After screening the complaint, the court identified some claims that could proceed and dismissed other claims with permission to amend. Moore chose to proceed only on the claims the court found legally sufficient.
The court ordered separate service of the lawsuit on Melissa Stolsig because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that she was a contract employee and could not be served through its office. The order also required the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion ending the case within 91 days, and set deadlines for Moore’s opposition and the defendants’ reply.
Judge Davila’s February 25, 2022 order managed service and the next steps in the case; it did not decide whether Moore’s remaining claims would succeed. The order also allowed discovery, required Moore to serve his court communications on the defendants, and warned that failing to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Salinas Valley State Prison · No. 5:21-cv-01019
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 25, 2022
Background
Kevin Moe Moore, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Mental Health Department at Salinas Valley State Prison and prison employees. On June 30, 2021, the court screened the complaint, identified cognizable claims, and dismissed deficient claims with leave to amend. The court gave Moore the option of filing an amended complaint or notifying the court that he wanted to remove the deficient claims and proceed on the cognizable claims. Moore chose the latter option, so the court struck the deficient claims and ordered service of the remaining claims.
Service on Melissa Stolsig
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the court that Melissa Stolsig was a contract employee and could not be served through that department’s office. The court therefore directed the Clerk to mail Stolsig, identified as a psychologist, the notice of lawsuit, waiver-of-service forms, the complaint and attachments, the initial service order, and this order at the address provided in the order. The Clerk was also directed to send Moore a copy of the order.
Required motions and deadlines
The defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. A dispositive motion is a motion seeking to resolve the claims without a trial. Any summary-judgment motion had to comply with Rule 56 and include adequate factual documentation. The order stated that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed.
Moore’s opposition was due 28 days after the defendants filed their motion, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after that. The motion would be considered submitted when the reply was due, unless the court later ordered a hearing. The order also directed that Moore receive the required warning about the consequences of failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion.
Other case-management instructions
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order before discovery could begin. Moore was required to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel. The order stated that Moore was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. It warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Requests for extensions had to be filed by the deadline and supported by good cause.
Disposition
This was an order directing service and setting procedures for the case. It did not grant or deny a dispositive motion and did not decide the merits of Moore’s remaining claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.