Hash v. Giacomazzi

Background

Lawrence G. Hash, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous prison staff and other individuals. The amended complaint was the operative complaint. The court had granted Hash’s request to add back former defendants P. Covello, J. Arnold, and M. Nelson. The court stated that the case would be served on defendants concerning their alleged involvement in five Rules Violations Reports described in Hash’s supplemental amendment.

Service of Defendants

The court ordered service on P. Covello, Chief Disciplinary Officer, and Captain J. Arnold. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order directed the clerk, the department, the California Attorney General’s Office, and the United States Marshals Service to take specified steps concerning service waivers and formal service on defendants who did not waive service.

Pending Summary-Judgment Motion

Because of the new defendants, the court stayed briefing on the defendants’ pending summary-judgment motion. Hash’s March 8, 2024 opposition deadline was terminated. Within 28 days after filing their service waivers, the new defendants were ordered to file a motion to join the pending summary-judgment motion or a notice stating that they intended to file a separate dispositive motion. A separate summary-judgment motion had to be filed within 56 days after the notice of intent.

The order stated that any summary-judgment motion must comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and be supported by adequate factual documentation. It also stated that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed. If the defendants filed a summary-judgment motion, Hash was to receive required notices concerning how to oppose it. The court would set new briefing deadlines if the new defendants joined the pending motion; otherwise, Hash’s opposition to a separate motion would be due 28 days after that motion was filed.

Additional Instructions

The court set a 14-day deadline for a reply after Hash filed an opposition, stated that the motion would be submitted when the reply was due unless the court ordered a hearing, and allowed discovery under the federal rules without an additional order. Hash was directed to serve communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, prosecute the case, and comply with court orders. The court warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Requests for extensions had to be filed by the deadline and show good cause.

Disposition

This order addressed service and case-management procedures. It did not decide the merits of Hash’s claims or rule on the pending summary-judgment motion.