Craven v. Garcia
- Martinez-Olguin
- 5:23-cv-01822
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Craven v. Garcia, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Craven’s fabricated-evidence claim after he missed the amendment deadline and set summary-judgment deadlines.
Kalvin Neil Craven’s fabricated-evidence claim was dismissed, while his original complaint remained operative. Craven and the defendant were required to follow the court’s briefing and discovery schedule.
What happened
In Craven v. Garcia, the court had given Kalvin Neil Craven 28 days to file an amended fabricated-evidence claim after identifying problems with his earlier claim. Craven did not file an amended complaint or request more time.
The court therefore dismissed the fabricated-evidence claim and kept Craven’s original complaint as the operative complaint. The court also noted that the previously filed motion to dismiss had been withdrawn.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered the parties to follow a schedule for a possible summary-judgment motion, opposition, and reply. The order also allowed discovery, including depositions of necessary witnesses confined in prison, and explained Craven’s responsibilities for serving filings and keeping the court informed of any address change.
The detailed version
- Craven v. Garcia · No. 5:23-cv-01822
- Martinez-Olguin
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
On November 15, 2023, the court dismissed Kalvin Neil Craven’s fabricated-evidence claim but gave him one final opportunity to correct the problems identified in that order. The court required an amended complaint within 28 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the fabricated-evidence claim, leave the original complaint as the operative complaint, and cause the case to proceed under the November 15 order.
The 28-day period expired. Craven neither filed an amended complaint containing an amended fabricated-evidence claim nor requested an extension of time.
Ruling
The court dismissed Craven’s fabricated-evidence claim. It also ruled that Craven’s original complaint remained the operative complaint and stated that the action would proceed under the November 15, 2023 order. The court noted that the motion to dismiss filed on January 19, 2024, had been withdrawn.
Briefing schedule and case management
The court ordered the defendant to file a summary-judgment motion within 60 days of the order. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to decide a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the outcome. The court required the motion to include adequate factual documentation, comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and include records and incident reports arising from the events at issue. The motion also had to include the required notice explaining to the plaintiff how to respond.
If the defendant believed the case could not be resolved through summary judgment, the defendant had to notify the court at least seven days before the motion deadline. Craven’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion was filed, and the defendant’s reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court later ordered one.
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted the defendant permission to depose Craven and other necessary witnesses confined in prison. The order also required Craven to serve court communications on defense counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The court stated that a reasonable extension of time would be granted upon a showing of good cause if requested by the applicable deadline.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.