Price v. Chen
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-03243
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Price v. Chen, Judge White ordered service on defendants and set deadlines for answering, discovery, and possible summary-judgment motions.
Marcus Price, Dr. James H. Chen, Napa State Hospital, and the California Department of State Hospitals were affected by the service, pleading, discovery, and motion deadlines.
What happened
In Price v. Chen, the court said Marcus Price’s amended complaint, read broadly, stated claims for relief against Napa State Hospital and Dr. James H. Chen. Earlier service through the California corrections department’s electronic system had not worked.
The court ordered the Clerk and United States Marshal to serve Dr. Chen and the California Department of State Hospitals, which runs Napa State Hospital. It also required defendants to answer, set deadlines for a possible summary-judgment or other case-ending motion, explained the response schedule, and allowed discovery under the federal rules.
This order did not decide whether Price or the defendants were legally right. It directed service and set procedures for moving the case forward. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on December 8, 2022.
The detailed version
- Price v. Chen · No. 4:22-cv-03243
- Jeffrey White
- Dec. 8, 2022
Background
In an earlier order, the court found that Marcus Price’s amended complaint, when read broadly, stated legally supportable claims against Napa State Hospital and Dr. James H. Chen, a doctor working there. The opinion says that service could not be completed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program.
Order
The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve, without requiring advance payment of fees, Dr. Chen at Napa State Hospital and the California Department of State Hospitals, which the order says runs Napa State Hospital. The Marshal must serve the summons, the amended complaint and attachments, the earlier Order of Service, and this order. The Clerk also had to mail courtesy copies to the California Attorney General’s Office.
The defendants were ordered to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To expedite the case, they were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was issued, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the case or a claim. Any summary-judgment motion had to comply with Rule 56 and include relevant records and incident reports.
The order set the following response schedule: Price could file an opposition within 28 days after the motion was filed, and defendants could file a reply within 14 days after the opposition. Defendants also had to provide the required notice explaining the summary-judgment process. The motion would be treated as submitted when the reply was due, and no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one.
The court required Price to serve defendants, or their counsel once counsel was designated, with copies of all communications sent to the court. It also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order under Rule 30(a)(2).
Disposition and significance
The court did not grant or deny a summary-judgment motion and did not decide the merits of Price’s claims. This was an order directing service and establishing case-management procedures. Judge Jeffrey White issued it on December 8, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.