Dalton v. Votari

Background

Alvin Henry Dalton, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States Court of Appeals had vacated an earlier dismissal and remanded the case to this court.

Dalton moved for emergency injunctive relief, meaning an immediate court order requiring particular conduct. He asked the court to order San Quentin State Prison to move him to a single cell. The opinion states that this was the same relief sought in his complaint.

Ruling on Emergency Relief

The court denied the motion. It gave two reasons. First, San Quentin State Prison was not a defendant or party to the case, and the court stated that it was unclear whether the prison could be sued because it appeared to be a building rather than a governmental or other suable entity. Second, Dalton had not shown, or attempted to show, that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. The court identified that showing as a requirement for immediate or temporary injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a).

The court’s denial of emergency relief did not decide the merits of Dalton’s underlying claim.

Service and Case Schedule

The court ordered that M. Votari be served at San Quentin State Prison and that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) be served in Sacramento, California. Service was to proceed through CDCR’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. CDCR was directed to report within 40 days after receiving the order by email which defendants would waive formal service and which would not waive service or could not be reached. The California Attorney General’s Office was directed to file service waivers for defendants who agreed to waive service within 21 days after receiving that report.

For any defendant who did not waive service, the clerk was directed to prepare United States Marshal Service forms and provide the required documents for service. The defendants were ordered to file an answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order required the defendant to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by June 6, 2023, unless the defendant informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. Dalton’s opposition, if any, was due 28 days after service of the motion, and the defendant’s reply was due 14 days after service of the opposition. No hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one. The defendant also had to provide proof that Dalton received the required warning about summary judgment; otherwise, the motion would be summarily dismissed.

The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another order before discovery could begin. It also directed Dalton to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendant or the defendant’s 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Vacatur of Prior Order

The court vacated its prior order denying emergency injunctive relief and addressing service because that order misspelled M. Votari’s last name as “Voltari.”