Stanley, Jr. v. Malondondo
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-00292
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Stanley, Jr. v. Malondondo, Judge Donato continued two claims, dismissed other defendants, and ordered service and next steps in the detainee’s civil-rights case.
The plaintiff, Deputy J. Maldonado, Sergeant Lynch, and the other defendants named in the complaint. The case continues against Maldonado and Lynch; all other defendants were dismissed.
What happened
In Stanley, Jr. v. Malondondo, the plaintiff, a detainee representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The court had previously found that the complaint stated an excessive-force claim against Maldonado and a due-process claim against Lynch, while giving the plaintiff time to provide more information about other claims and defendants.
The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise contact the court by the deadline. The case therefore continues against Maldonado and Lynch, while all other defendants were dismissed. The court ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve Maldonado and Lynch and set deadlines for motions, responses, and replies.
Judge James Donato also allowed discovery and warned the plaintiff that failing to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Stanley, Jr. v. Malondondo · No. 3:23-cv-00292
- James Donato
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
The plaintiff, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously determined that the original complaint stated an excessive-force claim against Maldonado concerning a July 26, 2022 incident and a due-process claim against Lynch concerning a disciplinary hearing. The court dismissed the remaining claims and defendants with leave to amend so the plaintiff could provide more information.
The deadline to amend passed, and the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the court.
Rulings and case management
The court ordered that the case continue against Maldonado and Lynch. It dismissed all other defendants. The Clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the U.S. Marshal was directed to serve Deputy J. Maldonado and Sergeant Lynch at the West County Detention Facility without requiring advance payment of fees.
The court ordered the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion no later than 56 days after service. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the case or a claim. The defendants must serve the plaintiff with the required notices concerning summary judgment and, if applicable, exhaustion of administrative remedies. The plaintiff’s opposition, if any, is due 28 days after the motion is served, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. No hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.
The court stated that discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff must serve copies of communications to the court on the defendants or their counsel. The plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting the case, must promptly report address changes, and must comply with court orders; failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
Disposition
This order continued the action against Maldonado and Lynch, dismissed all other defendants, ordered service, and established case-management deadlines. It did not decide whether the excessive-force or due-process claims ultimately succeed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.