Dunbar v. Darrett
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-00906
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dunbar v. Darrett and Dunbar v. Dahlberg, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied defendants’ requests to pause discovery and file multiple summary-judgment motions.
The order affected the defendants in both actions and Eddie Dunbar. The defendants could not pause merits-based discovery or file more than one summary-judgment motion, and they received a schedule requiring one such motion in each case by June 25, 2024.
What happened
In Dunbar v. Darrett and the related action Dunbar v. Dahlberg, the defendants asked to pause merits-based discovery while the court considered a summary-judgment motion based on Heck v. Humphrey. They also asked for more time to file a second summary-judgment motion if the court rejected the Heck motion.
The court denied the defendants’ administrative motions to stay merits-based discovery and file more than one summary-judgment motion. The court noted that it had already granted the defendants an earlier extension and had set June 25, 2024, as the deadline for summary-judgment motions.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered the defendants to file one summary-judgment motion in each case by June 25, 2024. Eddie Dunbar’s opposition was due 28 days after each motion, and the defendants’ replies were due 14 days after the opposition. The order terminated the specified motions in both cases.
The detailed version
- Dunbar v. Darrett · No. 3:23-cv-00906
- Martinez-Olguin
- May 21, 2024
Background
The court considered defendants’ administrative motions in two actions brought by Eddie Dunbar. The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, merits-based discovery while they pursued a summary-judgment motion based on Heck v. Humphrey. They also asked for an extension of time to file a second merits-based summary-judgment motion, 60 days after an order denying the Heck-based motion.
Before these motions, the defendants had requested a new briefing schedule to allow additional time to investigate facts and prepare a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion. The court had granted that request, and summary-judgment motions were due June 25, 2024. The court also stated that it had previously granted the defendants an extension of time to file their summary-judgment motions.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ administrative motions to stay merits-based discovery and file more than one motion for summary judgment. The court cited the Standing Order for Civil Cases, Section E.1, and noted the earlier extension of time.
The court directed defendants to file one motion for summary judgment in each case no later than June 25, 2024. Dunbar’s opposition in each case was due no later than 28 days after the relevant motion was filed. The defendants’ reply brief in each case was due no later than 14 days after Dunbar’s opposition was filed.
The order terminated Docket No. 32 in Case No. 23-cv-00905-AMO (PR) and Docket No. 29 in Case No. 23-cv-00906-AMO (PR).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.