Moore v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

Kevin Moe Moore, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Salinas Valley State Prison Mental Health Department and prison employees. After screening the complaint, the court identified claims that could proceed and dismissed deficient claims with leave to amend. Moore then notified the court that he wanted to proceed on the claims identified as cognizable. The court struck the deficient claims and ordered service of the remaining claims.

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 separately ordered service at an address provided by the department, but the service packet was returned as undeliverable on March 21, 2022.

Orders

The court ordered the Clerk to mail Stolsig, identified in the order as a psychologist, the lawsuit, attachments, prior service documents, and a request to waive service at the corrected address listed in the order. The Clerk was also ordered to mail Moore a copy of the order.

The court reminded defendants of their obligations under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning waiver of service and potential service costs. The order explained the response deadlines that would apply if service were waived.

No later than 91 days after the order was filed, defendants were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims the court had found cognizable. A dispositive motion is one that seeks to resolve some or all of the case. The court stated that any summary-judgment motion must comply with Rule 56 and warned that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed. Defendants could instead inform the court if they believed the case could not be resolved by summary judgment.

Deadlines and Case Administration

Moore’s opposition to any dispositive motion was due 28 days after the motion was filed. Defendants’ reply was due 14 days after Moore’s opposition. The motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court later ordered one. The court also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another order before discovery could begin.

The order instructed Moore to serve defendants with copies of his communications to the court, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. It warned that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b). Requests for extensions had to be filed by the deadline being extended and supported by good cause.

Disposition

This order renewed service on Melissa Stolsig and established procedures and deadlines for the next stage of the case. It did not grant or deny a dispositive motion and did not decide whether Moore’s claims would ultimately succeed. Judge Edward J. Davila entered the order on April 4, 2022.