Simmons v. Avila
- Corl
- 3:22-cv-01851
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Simmons v. Avila, Judge Corl dismissed claims against Perez and the SVSP Warden with prejudice and ordered service on Avila.
The claims against Perez and the SVSP Warden were dismissed with prejudice. M. Avila remained subject to the case and was ordered to be served. Gabriel D. Simmons remained responsible for meeting the case requirements and deadlines.
What happened
Simmons v. Avila is a civil-rights case brought by Gabriel D. Simmons, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, under a federal civil-rights law.
The court had previously dismissed part of the complaint and allowed Simmons to file an amended complaint. After an extension, the deadline passed without an amended complaint.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corl dismissed the claims against Perez and the SVSP Warden with prejudice and ordered that M. Avila be served. The order also set deadlines for a defense motion, Simmons’s response, discovery, and other case communications.
The detailed version
- Simmons v. Avila · No. 3:22-cv-01851
- Corl
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Gabriel D. Simmons, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state officials. The court had previously dismissed part of his complaint and gave him permission to file an amended complaint. The court warned that, if he did not file a timely and sufficient amended complaint, the claims against Perez and the SVSP Warden would be dismissed and service would be ordered on M. Avila. The court granted Simmons an extension, but the new deadline passed without an amended complaint.
Rulings
The court ordered that the claims against Perez and the SVSP Warden were dismissed with prejudice. The court also ordered that M. Avila be served at Salinas Valley State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The Clerk was directed to send the complaint, order, waiver form, and summons to the department and to provide a copy of the order to Simmons.
Case schedule and instructions
The order directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could resolve the case no later than 91 days after the order was issued, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Defendants must serve Simmons with their filings and with the required notice explaining summary judgment. Simmons’s opposition, if any, would be due 28 days after the motion was filed. No hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. Simmons was directed to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The order warned that failure to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b). This order did not decide the merits of Simmons’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.