Lopez v. Nares et al
Filing
11
ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. C-10-5799 TEH (PR)
ARTHUR LOPEZ,
ORDER OF SERVICE
v.
LUZ F. NARES, et. al.,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
Plaintiff, a former California state prisoner, filed this
19
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
20
that several correctional officers at California Training Facility-
21
North (“CTF”) in Soledad, California, were deliberately indifferent
22
to his serious medical needs while he was imprisoned at that
23
facility.
24
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The action is now before the Court for initial screening
25
26
27
28
I
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of
cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
1
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
2
The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,
3
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,
4
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
5
granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
6
from such relief.”
7
litigants, however, must be liberally construed.
8
627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
9
Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Id. § 1915A(b).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Pleadings filed by pro se
Hebbe v. Pliler,
10
11
II
12
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
13
allege two essential elements:
14
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
15
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
16
color of state law.
17
(1) that a right secured by the
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical
18
needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and
19
unusual punishment.
20
“Dental care is one of the most important medical needs” of
21
prisoners.
22
1989) (citation omitted).
23
indifference” to a prisoner’s serious medical needs involves an
24
examination of two elements:
25
medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that
26
need.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t., 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.
A determination of “deliberate
the seriousness of the prisoner’s
See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992).
27
28
2
1
A “serious medical need” exists if the failure to treat a
2
prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or
3
the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
4
at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on
5
other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,
6
1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
7
reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of
8
comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that
9
significantly affects an individual’s daily activities, or the
McGuckin, 974 F.2d
The existence of an injury that a
10
existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of
11
indications that a prisoner has a “serious” need for medical
12
treatment.
13
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337–41 (9th Cir. 1990)).
14
McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059–60 (citing Wood v.
A prison official is “deliberately indifferent” if he
15
knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and
16
disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate
17
it.
18
negligence, however, is insufficient to make out a violation of the
19
Eighth Amendment.
20
Cir. 2004); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002);
21
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981); see, e.g.,
22
Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding no
23
merit in claims stemming from alleged delays in administering pain
24
medication, treating broken nose and providing replacement crutch,
25
because claims did not amount to more than negligence); McGuckin,
26
974 F.2d at 1059 (mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060–61 (9th
27
28
A claim of
3
1
medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner’s
2
Eighth Amendment rights); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th
3
Cir. 1990) (repeatedly failing to satisfy requests for aspirins and
4
antacids to alleviate headaches, nausea and pains is not
5
constitutional violation; isolated occurrences of neglect may
6
constitute grounds for medical malpractice but do not rise to level
7
of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain); Anthony v. Dowdle,
8
853 F.2d 741, 743 (9th Cir. 1988) (no more than negligence stated
9
where prison warden and work supervisor failed to provide prompt and
10
sufficient medical care).
11
ignored the instructions of a prisoner's treating physician is
12
sufficient to state a claim, however.
13
177 F.3d 1160, 1165 & n.6 (9th Cir. 1999).
14
A contention that a correctional officer
See Wakefield v. Thompson,
Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations of deliberate
15
indifference to his serious medical needs appear to state a
16
cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and the Defendants named below
17
will be served.
18
19
II
20
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:
21
1.
The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States
22
Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the
23
Complaint in this matter, all attachments thereto, and copies of
24
this Order on the following CTF employees:
25
Nares; (2) CTF Chief Dental Officer K. B. Sather; (3) CTF Acting
26
Chief Medical Officer S. Martinez; (4) CTF Supervising D.D.S. J.
27
28
4
(1) CTF Dentist Luz F.
1
Novial and (5) Califoria Prison Health Care Services Chief of Third
2
Level Health Care Appeals J. Walker.
3
copy of this Order on Plaintiff.
4
5
2.
The Clerk also shall serve a
To expedite the resolution of this case, the Court
orders as follows:
6
a.
No later than ninety (90) days from the date of
7
this Order, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or
8
other dispositive motion.
9
supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all
10
respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as
11
exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events
12
at issue.
13
resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall
14
so inform the Court prior to the date their motion is due.
15
papers filed with the Court shall be served promptly on Plaintiff.
16
A motion for summary judgment shall be
If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be
b.
All
Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion
17
shall be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later
18
than thirty (30) days after Defendants serve Plaintiff with the
19
motion.
20
c.
Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary
21
judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will,
22
if granted, end your case.
23
order to oppose a motion for summary judgment.
24
judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material
25
fact - that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that
26
would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in
27
28
5
Generally, summary
1
summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which
2
will end your case.
3
summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or
4
other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your
5
complaint says.
6
declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or
7
authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradicts
8
the facts shown in the Defendants’ declarations and documents and
9
show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
When a party you are suing makes a motion for
Instead, you must set out specific facts in
If
10
you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment,
11
if appropriate, may be entered against you.
12
granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.
13
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc)
14
(App. A).
15
If summary judgment is
Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for
16
failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. §
17
1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without prejudice.
18
You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in
19
order to dispute any “factual record” presented by the Defendants in
20
their motion to dismiss.
21
(9th Cir. 2003).
22
d.
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14
Defendants shall file a reply brief within
23
fifteen (15) days of the date on which Plaintiff serves them with
24
the opposition.
25
26
e.
The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the
date the reply brief is due.
No hearing will be held on the motion
27
28
6
1
unless the Court so orders at a later date.
2
3.
Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal
3
Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
the parties may conduct discovery.
5
4.
No further Court order is required before
All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must
6
be served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has
7
been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to
8
Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.
9
5.
It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this
10
case.
11
change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a
12
timely fashion.
13
this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Plaintiff must keep the Court and all parties informed of any
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18
DATED
10/05/2011
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.10\Lopez-10-5799-order of service.wpd
27
28
7
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?