Boone v. Allison
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-08053
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Boone v. Allison, Judge White organized service and case deadlines after screening found certain prisoner claims could proceed.
Velton Lamont Boone and the defendants in the action, including Defendant Davis and the seven identified members of the Statewide Medical Authorization Review Team.
What happened
In Boone v. Allison, Velton Lamont Boone, a California prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint. The court had already found certain claims could proceed and had ordered service on Defendant Davis.
Judge White clarified that Boone’s earlier amended complaint was the operative complaint. A later filing was treated only as a supplement identifying previously unnamed defendants, and the court ordered service procedures for seven members of the Statewide Medical Authorization Review Team.
The court did not decide the merits of Boone’s claims. Judge Jeffrey White set deadlines for answers, dispositive motions, responses, and replies; allowed discovery; and reminded Boone of his duties to serve filings, update his address, and prosecute the case.
The detailed version
- Boone v. Allison · No. 4:21-cv-08053
- Jeffrey White
- June 6, 2022
Background
Velton Lamont Boone, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, was allowed to amend his original complaint. He filed a document titled “First Amended Complaint” on May 18, 2022. The court screened that complaint, found certain claims legally sufficient to proceed, and ordered it served on Defendant Davis. The court also found claims legally sufficient against unnamed defendants and directed Boone to provide their names.
Boone submitted those names on May 26, 2022, but titled the filing “First Amended Complaint” as well. The court clarified that docket number 18 was the operative First Amended Complaint. Docket number 20 was treated as a supplement only to the extent it identified the unnamed defendants.
Order
The court ordered service on the members of the Statewide Medical Authorization Review Team identified as Dr. G. Song, Dr. M. Popori, Dr. P. Tafoya, Dr. D. Ralston, Dr. E. dos Santos-Chen, Dr. A. Vasedeva, and Dr. D. Kalauokalani. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for civil-rights cases. The order also described procedures for obtaining service waivers and arranging service through the United States Marshals Service for defendants who did not waive service.
The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The remaining defendants, including those ordered served in this order, were directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by August 31, 2022, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Boone’s opposition was due September 30, 2022, and any reply was due October 14, 2022. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one. It also required defendants to provide Boone with the required warning about opposing summary judgment and to file proof that they had done so.
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. It instructed Boone to serve his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The order warned that failure to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Effect of the Order
This order addressed service, scheduling, discovery, and case-management matters. It did not grant or deny summary judgment and did not decide whether Boone’s underlying claims would ultimately succeed. Judge Jeffrey White entered the order on June 6, 2022.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.