Price v. Mann

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARCUS A. PRICE, Case No. 24-cv-08592-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER SCHEDULING SUMMARY 9 v. JUDGMENT BRIEFING; DENYING PENDING MOTIONS 10 VAVOOM MANN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 17 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 13 employees at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), where he has been involuntarily committed. The 14 complaint, when liberally construed, was found to state a cognizable due process claim against 15 Defendant Mann, who was thereafter served by the Marshal. Mann has filed a motion to dismiss 16 on the grounds that the complaint seeks damages against him in his official capacity. His motion 17 to dismiss was denied, and the Defendant as “AJ” was dismissed because Plaintiff did not provide 18 their last names or show cause why not by the deadline to do so. Plaintiff was directed to notify 19 the Court of his intent to prosecute, and he has done so. 20 Good cause appearing, the Court orders as follows: 21 1. No later than August 3, 2026, Defendant shall file a motion for summary judgment 22 or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation 23 and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as 24 exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If Defendant is of the 25 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court 26 prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be 27 ] At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendant shall also serve, on a separate 2 || paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) 3 || (enbanc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the Court and 5 served upon Defendants no later than September 3, 2026. Plaintiff must read the attached page 6 || headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 7 || F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 8 Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than September 17, 2026. 9 The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing 10 will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 1 All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant or their 2 counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant or E B their counsel. 3 14 2. Plaintiff's motion to “identify” the last name of the dismissed Defendant is 5 15 DENIED. The Court does not have this information. Plaintiff may conduct discovery on parties 16 and non-parties as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His request for an extension 5 7 of time to submit this information to the court is denied because it comes many months after the 5 18 deadline passed without justification for this delay. 19 3. Plaintiff's motion for a settlement payment is DENIED because there is no 30 evidence the parties have reached a settlement agreement. This order resolves docket numbers 15 and 17. IT IS SO ORDERED. 73 Dated: June 5, 2026 JE ITE 26 Umted State#District Judge 27 28