Burton v. Lewis et al

Filing 3

ORDER of Service. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/9/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JERRY A. BURTON, 8 9 10 11 12 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) G. D. LEWIS, et al., ) ) Defendants. __________________________________ ) No. C 12-3158 JSW (PR) ORDER OF SERVICE 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights 15 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden of Pelican Bay Sate Prison 16 (“PBSP”), where Plaintiff is currently housed, and two officials of his former prison, 17 California State Prison, Corcoran (“Corcoran”). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. This Court now reviews the complaint 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and orders it served upon Defendants. 20 DISCUSSION 21 I. Standard of Review 22 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 23 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 25 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or 26 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 27 defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be 28 1 liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2 1990). 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 4 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 5 necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 6 is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 7 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need 8 detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 9 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 10 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 11 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer 13 "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se 14 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 15 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) 17 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 18 that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 19 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 20 II. Legal Claims 21 Plaintiff alleges that he has been placed in solitary confinement in the secured 22 housing units (SHU) of Corcoran and PBSP for many years because of his erroneous 23 identification as a gang member. Plaintiff alleges that there is another prisoner with a 24 similar name as Plaintiff’s who is a gang member, and that prison officials have confused 25 Plaintiff for the other inmate. Plaintiff alleges that while he was at Corcoran he gave 26 Defendant Hubbard, a Chief Deputy Warden, information to this effect but he was not 27 removed from the SHU. He alleges that Defendant Lee, also a Corcoran official, later 28 transferred Plaintiff to PBSP based on false evidence of Plaintiff’s gang affiliation. 1 Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lewis, the PBSP Warden, has failed to release 2 him from the SHU or to hold a further hearing to determine the continuing validity of 3 identifying Plaintiff as affiliated with a gang. 4 When liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations state cognizable claims that 5 Defendants the violated his rights to due process and under the Eighth Amendment. CONCLUSION 6 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 8 1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal 9 shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and all attachments 10 thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants: Warden G.D. Lewis at Pelican Bay 11 State Prison, and against Chief Deputy Warden Susan Hubbard and Classification 12 Service Representative Brian Lee both located at the California State Prison at 13 Corcoran. 14 15 The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint with all attachments thereto, and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 16 The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff. 17 2. Defendants shall file an answer to the complaint within eighty-four (84) days 18 of the date this order is filed. 19 3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 20 a. No later than eighty-four (84) from the date this order is filed, 21 Defendants shall either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, 22 or a notice to the Court that they are of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by 23 dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation 24 and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 25 Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 26 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If defendants are of the 27 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so 28 inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 1 All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on the Plaintiff. 2 b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with 3 the court and served upon defendants no later than twenty-eight days from the date of 4 service of the motion. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- 5 WARNING,” which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953- 6 954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 7 1988). 8 9 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), 10 plaintiff should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING 11 (EXHAUSTION).” See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 13 14 15 16 c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 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. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure. No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or 18 Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 19 5. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be 20 granted. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than five days prior 21 to the deadline sought to be extended. 22 6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant, 23 or Defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the 24 document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel. 25 7. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 26 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a 27 timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 28 prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 9, 2012 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 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 1 2 NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case 3 dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 5 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 6 Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material 7 fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, 8 the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which 9 will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is 10 properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what 11 your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, 12 answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that 13 contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is 14 a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, 15 summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, 16 your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 17 18 19 20 NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case. You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you 21 did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations 22 (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents 23 accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or 24 other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 25 26 27 28 If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JERRY A BURTON, Case Number: CV12-03158 JSW 6 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 v. 8 G D LEWIS et al, 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 13 14 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on July 9, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jerry A. Burton E85733 P.O. Box 7500 Crescent City, CA 95532 Dated: July 9, 2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?