Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 11, 2022

McCurty v. Madsen

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
3:21-cv-05435
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McCurty v. Madsen, Judge Rogers reopened the case, lifted its settlement stay, and set deadlines for briefing a possible summary-judgment motion.

Who this affects

Michael McCurty and the defendants in the action are affected by the reopening, the lifted stay, and the new briefing deadlines. McCurty must also serve his court communications on defense counsel and keep the court informed of address changes.

What happened

McCurty v. Madsen is a civil-rights case brought by Michael McCurty, a state prisoner at the California Training Facility. He is representing himself and alleges constitutional violations there.

The court had paused the case and sent it to a prisoner mediation program while the parties tried to settle. After the court was told that they could not reach an agreement, it reopened the case and lifted the pause.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers set deadlines for the defendants’ possible summary-judgment motion, McCurty’s response, and the defendants’ reply. The order did not decide whether McCurty’s claims were valid.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McCurty v. Madsen · No. 3:21-cv-05435
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Oct. 11, 2022

Background

Michael McCurty, a state prisoner held at the California Training Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion says that the complaint alleges constitutional violations at that facility. McCurty is proceeding without a lawyer.

On August 30, 2022, the court referred the case to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program and paused the case while settlement discussions took place. The court had stated that it would issue a new schedule if the case did not settle. The court was later notified that the parties were unable to reach an agreement.

Order

The court lifted the stay and directed the Clerk to reopen the case file. It also set the following schedule:

- Within 60 days after the order, the defendants must file a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by a notice explaining what McCurty must do to oppose it. If the defendants believe the case cannot be resolved through summary judgment, they must notify the court before that deadline. - McCurty must file and serve his opposition within 28 days after the defendants file their motion. - The defendants must file any reply within 14 days after McCurty’s opposition. The motion will be treated as submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will occur unless the court later orders one.

The court also ordered McCurty to send copies of his communications with the court to defense counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, comply with court orders, and prosecute the case. The order allows requests for reasonable extensions of time when supported by good cause and filed by the deadline the request seeks to extend.

Disposition and Significance

The court reopened the action, lifted the stay, and set a briefing schedule. It did not grant or deny summary judgment and did not decide the merits of the alleged constitutional violations. The order is therefore a procedural order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.