Tolbert v. Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility

Background

Joel Tolbert III, identified as a state inmate, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. The complaint concerns officers at the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility, where Tolbert was formerly confined. The second amended complaint is the operative complaint.

Settlement proceedings were unsuccessful. The court had previously ordered the defendants to resubmit a motion to dismiss and later directed Tolbert to provide more information about unserved Defendant Sgt. P. Murphy. The court also asked County Counsel for Murphy’s current employment status and last known address. County Counsel filed information about Murphy’s last known home address under seal.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the clerk to mail Murphy a notice of lawsuit, requests to waive service of summons, copies of the waiver forms, the second amended complaint and its attachments, the earlier order of service, and this order. The clerk was directed to use the address filed under seal and to ensure that the address was not disclosed to Tolbert or the public. The clerk was also directed to mail a copy of the order to Tolbert.

The order explains that Murphy may seek representation from the Office of the Contra Costa County Counsel, which represents the other defendants. It also explains the consequences of waiving or refusing service under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including possible responsibility for service costs and the time for filing an answer if service is waived.

Dispositive-Motion Schedule

No later than 91 days after the order was filed, Murphy was directed to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims the court had found cognizable. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve some or all of the claims. Any summary-judgment motion must comply with Rule 56 and include adequate factual documentation. The order states that summary judgment or qualified immunity cannot be granted if material facts are disputed.

If a summary-judgment motion is filed, the plaintiff must receive the required notice explaining the requirements and consequences of opposing summary judgment. Tolbert’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion is filed, and the defendant’s reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be treated as submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.

Other Instructions and Disposition

The court permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another order before discovery could begin. It directed Tolbert to serve communications to the court on Murphy or Murphy’s counsel, to keep the court informed of any address change, and to comply with court orders and deadlines. The order warns that failure to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b). Requests for extensions must be filed by the deadline at issue and must show good cause.

This was a procedural order addressing service, deadlines, and case management. Judge Edward J. Davila did not decide whether Tolbert’s civil-rights claims succeed or fail.