Tolbert v. Holland

Background

Joel Tolbert III, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the Martinez Detention Facility in Contra Costa County. He was formerly housed there as a pretrial detainee. His amended complaint was the operative complaint. The court had previously ordered the defendants to file a motion resolving the case or notify the court about that motion.

County Counsel informed the court that Deputy Gamba was no longer employed by Contra Costa County and had not been served. After a prior court order, County Counsel filed Gamba’s last known home address under seal. The court therefore ordered service on Gamba at that address and directed that the address not be disclosed to Tolbert or the public.

Order

The clerk was ordered to mail Gamba a notice of the lawsuit, a request to waive service, the amended complaint and attachments, the earlier order concerning partial dismissal and service, and this order. The clerk was also ordered to mail this order to Tolbert.

The court directed the defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the claims in the amended complaint that the court had found eligible to proceed. The order explained that any summary-judgment motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and include adequate factual documentation. If the defendants believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment, they were directed to notify the court before the deadline.

Tolbert’s opposition would be due 28 days after the defendants filed their motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after Tolbert filed his opposition. The motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court later ordered one. The parties could conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also required Tolbert to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel and warned him to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders.

Disposition and effect

This was an order concerning service and case management, not a decision on whether Tolbert’s claims were legally or factually valid. The court ordered service on Deputy Gamba and directed the defendants to proceed toward a dispositive motion; it did not grant or deny a summary-judgment motion in this order. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on September 5, 2023.