1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEMETRIUS A. WRIGHT, Case No. 20-cv-07068-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 37 10 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Demetrius Wright, a former detainee and current state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights 14 action under

. He alleges that defendant police officer Allen failed to properly 15 address his medical needs during questioning, and that Chief of Police Kirkpatrick and the City of 16 Oakland failed to properly train and supervise Oakland police officers including Allen. 17 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff filed a motion to amend to add new 18 defendants and amend his allegations. The motion to amend was denied without prejudice for the 19 new allegations and for the request to add Oakland Police Officers Fiorino and Borgna as 20 defendants. The Court indicated that the motion to amend would be considered during the review 21 of the summary judgment motion. 22 After reviewing the summary judgment filings, this case was stayed and administratively 23 closed pending the resolution of post-decision J.K.J. v. City of San Diego,

(9th Cir. 24 2021). In that case, the circuit court determined that police officers were entitled to qualified 25 immunity in connection with the death of a pregnant detainee who they had observed vomiting in 26 a patrol car.

. 27 In February 2023, the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc and the three-judge 1 (unpublished). After oral argument before the en banc court, the parties filed a joint motion to 2 stay the appellate proceedings pending settlement. The parties then filed a joint motion to 3 voluntarily dismiss the appeal and on November 27, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted the motion to 4 dismiss the appeal, and the order constituted the mandate of the Court. J.K.J v. City of San Diego, 5

(9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2024) (unpublished).1 6 Now that the JKL appeal has concluded, the stay is lifted and this case is reopened. After 7 reviewing the filings for the motion to amend and the motion for summary judgment, the Court 8 grants leave for plaintiff to amend, considering that plaintiff is litigating this case pro se while 9 incarcerated and in light of the extensive medical issues plaintiff suffered following his arrest. 10 Service will be ordered on the two new defendants and the case continues with the proposed 11 amended complaint. The motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice and 12 defendants may refile an amended motion at a later date. After the new defendants are served, this 13 case will first be referred for mediation and the parties may discuss a global settlement with 14 plaintiff’s other case in this Court.2 15 For the foregoing reasons: 16 1. The stay is lifted and this case is reopened. The motion for summary judgment 17 (Dkt. No. 33) is denied without prejudice and the motion to amend (Dkt. No. 37) is granted. 18 Oakland Police Officers Fiorino and Borgna are added as defendants to this case which now 19 continues on the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 37). Once defendants waive service or are served, 20 and counsel for them appears, this case will be referred for mediation to the Northern District of 21 California Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. 22 2. The Clerk will issue a summons and the United States Marshal will serve, without 23 prepayment of fees, copies of the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 37) with attachments and copies 24 1 The three-judge panel’s decision is not precedential because it was vacated and not reinstated by 25 the en banc Court. See 9th Cir. R. 40-3, Advisory Note 2. 2 Plaintiff continues with a second case against Allen, Kirkpatrick, Alameda County, and Sheriff 26 Ahern regarding a delay in arraignment while in custody of the county and in the hospital. Wright v. Alameda County, Case No. 20-cv-07067-JD. Sheriff Ahern and Alameda County reached a 27 settlement with plaintiff and were dismissed from the action.

Dkt. No. 29. The case was 1 of this order on Oakland Police Officers Marisa Fiorino and Giovana Borgna. The Clerk is also 2 || requested to serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff. 3 3. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants, or 4 || defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 5 defendants or defendants’ counsel. 6 4. It is plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 7 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 8 || Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 9 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 41(b). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: February 28, 2025

14 JAMES TO 15 United Stftes District Judge 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28