Hash v. Giacomazzi

Background

Lawrence G. Hash, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous prison staff members at San Quentin State Prison and other individuals. The amended complaint was the operative complaint. The court had previously directed Hash to file a supplemental pleading identifying the senior hearing officers who presided over the final disciplinary hearings relevant to his due-process claims.

The court stated that Claims 1 and 2 challenged five Rules Violation Reports. It disregarded Log No. 4690 because that report was not the subject of this litigation. The court identified B. Walls as the senior hearing officer for RVRs numbered 4671 and 4973, D. Spurgeon as the officer for RVR 6610, and B. Haub as the officer for RVR 6611.

Order

The court ordered service on Lt. B. Walls, Lt. D. Spurgeon, and Lt. B. Haub. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The clerk was directed to send the operative complaint, attachments, specified earlier court orders, and an electronic-service waiver form to the department. The order also provided procedures for service by the United States Marshals Service if a defendant did not waive service or could not be reached.

The court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion—that is, a motion that could resolve the claims—within 91 days after the order was filed. Any summary-judgment motion had to comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and include adequate factual documentation. The court stated that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed. If a defendant believed summary judgment could not resolve the case, that defendant was required to inform the court before the motion deadline.

If the defendants filed a summary-judgment motion, they were required to provide Hash with the warnings required for a self-represented litigant under Ninth Circuit law. Hash’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion was filed, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court later ordered one.

The order also required Hash to serve communications to the court on the defendants or their counsel, permitted discovery under the federal rules without another court order, and instructed Hash to keep the court informed of address changes and follow court deadlines. The court warned that failing to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Requests for extensions had to be filed by the deadline and supported by good cause.

Disposition and Classification

Judge Edward J. Davila issued an order of service and case-management instructions. The order did not decide the merits of Hash’s civil-rights or due-process claims. It therefore is classified as a procedural order.