govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-4_24-cv-07343-2

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MARCUS A. PRICE, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
CHIEF HOSPITAL POLICE KWAN, et al., 
Defendants. 
 
 

 
ORDER SCHEDULING SUMMARY 
JUDGMENT BRIEFING; DENYING 
PENDING MOTIONS 
Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 25 
 
 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 
employees at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), where he has been involuntarily committed. The 
amended complaint, when liberally construed, was found to state a cognizable First Amendment 
retaliation claim against Defendant Kwan (erroneously spelled as “Kuan” in the amended 
complaint), and he was served. His motion to dismiss was denied, and the other two Defendants, 
identified as “Monique” and “Crystal,” were dismissed because Plaintiff did not provide their last 
names or show cause why not by the deadline to do so. Plaintiff was directed to notify the Court 
of his intent to prosecute, and he has done so. 
Good cause appearing, the Court orders as follows: 
1. No later than August 3, 2026, Defendant shall file a motion for summary judgment 
or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation 
and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as 
exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If 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. All papers filed with the Court shall be 
promptly served on Plaintiff. 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendant shall also serve, on a separate 
paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) 
(en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 
Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the Court and 
served upon Defendants no later than September 3, 2026. Plaintiff must read the attached page 
headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 
F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 
Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than September 17, 2026. 
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. 
All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant or their 
counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant or 
their counsel. 
2. Plaintiff’s motion to “identify” the last names of the dismissed Defendants is 
DENIED. The Court does not have this information. Plaintiff may conduct discovery on parties 
and non-parties as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His request for an extension 
of time to submit this information to the court is denied because it comes many months after the 
deadline passed without justification for this delay. 
3. Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement payment is DENIED because there is no 
evidence the parties have reached a settlement agreement. 
This order resolves docket numbers 23 and 25. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 5, 2026 
 
 
JEFFREY S. WHITE 
United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight