Thomas v. Pashilk

Background

Hilbert Thomas, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his amended complaint in part and allowed him to file a second amended complaint. The court had warned that, if Thomas did not amend on time and in accordance with that order, the amended complaint would remain the operative complaint and the case would proceed only with claims against R. Pashilk, R. Feston, and D. Campbell.

Thomas notified the court that he did not intend to file a second amended complaint and wanted to proceed with only his claims against Pashilk, Feston, and Campbell.

Rulings and case management

The court ordered that the claims against Oak Smith, E. Sanders, E. Patao, and L. Bravo were dismissed. The opinion does not state the specific basis for those dismissals.

The court ordered service on Lieutenant R. Feston and Lieutenant D. Campbell at San Quentin State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. It separately ordered service on Receiver J. Clark Kelso and his attorney. The opinion does not explain the relationship between this service order concerning Kelso and the earlier statement that the case would proceed only against Pashilk, Feston, and Campbell.

To move the case forward, the court ordered defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could dispose of the case no later than 91 days after the order was issued, unless they first informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Defendants were required to provide relevant records and incident reports with a summary-judgment motion and to serve Thomas with the required warning about opposing such a motion. Thomas’s opposition, if any, was due 28 days after the motion was filed, and defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.

The court also required Thomas to serve copies of his communications with the court on defendants or their counsel. It allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order before discovery could begin. The order reminded Thomas to seek access to nonconfidential prison medical and central-file materials directly from prison officials, and warned that failing to keep the court informed of address changes or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).

Classification and effect

This is a procedural order. It dismissed claims against four defendants, arranged service, authorized discovery, and set case deadlines; it did not decide the merits of Thomas’s remaining civil-rights claims. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley signed the order on September 2, 2022.