McCurty v. Lopez
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-04600
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In McCurty v. Lopez, Judge Rogers reopened the case, lifted the settlement stay, and set deadlines for a possible summary-judgment motion.
Michael McCurty and the defendants. The case resumed after settlement efforts failed, and the parties received deadlines for a possible summary-judgment motion and related filings.
What happened
In McCurty v. Lopez, Michael McCurty, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under a federal law against G. G. Lopez and other defendants based on alleged constitutional violations at the California Training Facility. The court had paused the case while the parties pursued settlement discussions involving this case and another case.
The settlement effort did not produce an agreement. The court therefore lifted the pause and directed the clerk to reopen the case. It did not decide whether McCurty’s allegations were legally valid.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered defendants to file a possible summary-judgment motion within 60 days, set deadlines for McCurty’s response and defendants’ reply, and explained McCurty’s responsibilities for serving filings, updating his address, and prosecuting the case.
The detailed version
- McCurty v. Lopez · No. 4:21-cv-04600
- Yvonne Rogers
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Michael McCurty, a state prisoner held at the California Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged constitutional violations at that facility. The court had referred this case and another pending case involving McCurty to a prisoner mediation program and stayed both cases while the parties pursued possible global settlement proceedings.
A federal magistrate judge notified the court that the parties were unable to reach an agreement. The court then addressed how this case would proceed.
Order
The court lifted the stay and directed the clerk to reopen the case file. It ordered defendants to file a motion for summary judgment, if appropriate, no later than 60 days after the order. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to rule based on the available evidence without a trial when the moving party contends that no material factual dispute requires a trial. The motion must include a notice explaining what McCurty must do to oppose it. If defendants believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment, they were required to notify the court before that deadline.
McCurty’s opposition would be due 28 days after defendants filed their motion, and defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after McCurty filed his opposition. The motion would be considered submitted when the reply was due, and no hearing would occur unless the court later ordered one.
The court also ordered McCurty to serve defendants’ counsel with copies of his communications to the court, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders on time. It stated that, under the local rule cited in the order, the court may dismiss a complaint without prejudice if mail to a self-represented party is returned as undeliverable and the party does not provide a current address within 60 days.
Disposition and Significance
The court reopened the action, lifted the stay, and set a briefing schedule. The order was procedural: it did not resolve the alleged constitutional violations, rule on the earlier partial dismissal, or decide any summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.