UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA MASON, Case No. 23-cv-02888-RFL

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF SERVICE

v.

KENNETH LALAS, et al., Defendants.

Joshua Mason, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court ordered electronic service on nine Defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program. Six Defendants were served, but there was not enough information to identify Correctional Officer Salcedo and there were at least three Correctional Officers with the last name Gonzalez employed by the prison on the date of the incident. Plaintiff was ordered to provide more information to serve these Defendants. Plaintiff filed a response and indicated that it is Correctional Officer F. Gonzalez and Salcedo is a female Correctional Officer actually named A. Acevedo. The Court will reorder electronic service on these two Defendants. Also, Defendant Nurse Cienega could not be served at the prison. Cienega was previously employed by Management Solutions, LLC, but Court staff learned that he is now employed by Sumo Staffing. Efforts to contact Sumo Staffing have been unsuccessful; however, the Court was provided Cienega’s confidential last known address. By concurrent order, the Court will order service under seal to the confidential address for Cienega. For the foregoing reasons: 1. The Court orders service of the third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 26), and all attachments thereto, on Salinas Valley State Prison Correctional Officer F. Gonzalez and Correctional Officer A. Acevedo, who transported Plaintiff to surgery on January 6, 2022. Defendants shall respond to the cognizable claims raised in the complaint. 2. Service on these Defendants shall proceed under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via email the following documents: the third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 26) and its attachments; this order; a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form; and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff. 3. No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall provide the Court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which Defendant(s) listed in this Order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which Defendant(s) decline to waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 4. Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each Defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms and copies of this Order, the summons and the complaint for service upon each Defendant who has not waived service. 5. On or before April 21, 2025, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to be cognizable above. a. If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds Plaintiff failed to exhaust their available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 6. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date Defendants’ motion is filed. 7. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 8. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 9. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, or on Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant or Defendants’ counsel. 10. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is required before the parties may conduct discovery. Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in their medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974); 15 California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations Manual §§ 13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. Requests to review these files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to prison officials, not to the Court. Plaintiff may also use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this Order. Such requests must be made directly to jail officials, not to the Court. 11. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 12. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 13. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to Plaintiff when they file and serve any motion for summary judgment:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2025

RITA F. LIN

United States District Judge