Hawthorne v. Ayers et al

Filing 19

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/15/08. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2008) .

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CARLOS ANTHONY HAWTHORNE II, Plaintiff, v. R. AYERS, JR.; A. COTA; R. W. FOX; J. PICKETT; D. LEE; T. HOLT; S. ROBINSON; and R. CRUZ; Defendant. No. C 08-1473 WHA (PR) ORDER OF SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend in the initial review order. Plaintiff has amended. DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). One of the claims in the original complaint was an Eighth Amendment claim involving conditions on the exercise yard that plaintiff used. He has omitted that claim from the amended complaint, so it will be dismissed without further leave to amend. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint."). Plaintiff's other claim is that the defendants, who were members of the Institutional Classification Committee. classified him for a "walk alone" exercise yard because he is African-American. He asserts that this was done because the yard where had he been assigned for eight years had "too many blacks." This is sufficient to state an equal protection claim. CONCLUSION 1. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendants arising from conditions on the exercise yard is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint in this matter and copies of this order upon the following defendants: R. Ayers, Jr.; A. Cota; R. W. Fox; J. Pickett; D. Lee; T. Holt; S. Robinson; and R. Cruz. Plaintiff say that they can be found at San Quentin State Prison. 3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows: a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior to the date their summary judgment motion is due. 2 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date of service of the motion. 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), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), plaintiff should take note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)," which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen days after the date of service of the opposition. d. 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. 4. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants or defendants' counsel. 5. It is the 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). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15 , 2008. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE G:\PRO-SE\W HA\CR.08\HAW THORNE1473.SRV.wpd 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?