Martin v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 20

ORDER OF SERVICE Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 8/12/2013.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/12/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

GEORGE MARTIN, H-90626,
Plaintiff(s),

9
v.

10
11

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 12-3193 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

13
Plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), has filed a pro

14
15

se First Amended Complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

16

inadequate medical care while at SVSP. Among other things, plaintiff alleges

17

that SVSP medical staff have deprived him of treatment for a host of serious

18

medical conditions, medically necessary cell feeding and effective pain

19

management. He claims that there actions and omissions amount to deliberate

20

indifference under § 1983 and medical negligence under California law.

21
22
23

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

24

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

25

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

26

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

27

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

28

granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

1

relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however.

2

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two

3
4

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

5

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a

6

person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

7

(1988).

8

B.

9

Legal Claims
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth

10

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v.

11

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A "serious medical need" exists if the failure

12

to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the

13

"unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,

14

1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on other

15

grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.

16

1997) (en banc). A prison official is "deliberately indifferent" if he knows that a

17

prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing

18

to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

19

(1994).

20

Liberally construed, plaintiff's allegations that SVSP medical staff have

21

deprived him of treatment for a host of serious medical conditions, medically

22

necessary cell feeding, effective pain management and the like, appear to state a

23

cognizable § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

24

against the following SVSP defendants: Doctors Michael C. Sepulveda, Richard

25

B. Mack, Kim Kumar, Darren Bright and Sammit Reed, and Nurse Eric Golden.

26

They also appear to state a cognizable California state law claim for medical

27
28

2

1

negligence against the same defendants pursuant to this court's supplemental

2

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. These SVSP defendants accordingly will be

3

ordered served.

4

But SVSP Warden Randy Grounds is dismissed because he is named on

5

the theory that he is liable for the actions of his subordinates and it is well

6

established that there is no § 1983 liability under such a theory, i.e., a theory of

7

respondeat superior liability. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

8

1989) (under no circumstances is there liability under § 1983 solely because one

9

is responsible for the actions or omissions of another).

10

And Dr. N. Bhatt, who plaintiff alleges was deliberately indifferent to his

11

serious medical needs while plaintiff was incarcerated at California Substance

12

Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran (SATF), is dismissed without prejudice to

13

plaintiff bringing his allegations against Dr. Bhatt in the Eastern District of

14

California, where Dr. Bhatt resides and where the events and/or omissions giving

15

rise to plaintiff's claim against Dr. Bhatt occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

16

CONCLUSION

17

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

18

1.

The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

19

serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the First Amended Complaint in this

20

matter, all attachments thereto, and copies of this order on the following

21

defendants at SVSP: Doctors Michael C. Sepulveda, Richard B. Mack, Kim

22

Kumar, Darren Bright and Sammit Reed, and Nurse Eric Golden. The clerk also

23

shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff.

24

2.

25

follows:

26

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as

a.

No later than 90 days from the date of this order, defendants

27
28

3

1

shall serve and file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion.

2

A motion for summary judgment must be supported by adequate factual

3

documentation and must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports

5

stemming from the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must

6

be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and

7

adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods

8

v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand

9

v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with

10

motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

11

available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice.

12

Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012); Woods, 684 F.3d at 935

13

(notice requirement set out in Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003),

14

must be served concurrently with motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

15

available administrative remedies).

16

If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by

17

summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall so inform the court

18

prior to the date their motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be

19

served promptly on plaintiff.

20

b.

Plaintiff must serve and file an opposition or statement of

21

non-opposition to the dispositive motion not more than 28 days after the motion

22

is served and filed.

23

c.

Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment

24

under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your

25

case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for

26

summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there

27
28

4

1

is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about any

2

fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

3

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

4

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

5

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

6

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

7

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

8

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradicts the facts shown in the defendant's

9

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material

10

fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

11

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

12

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. Rowland,

13

154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

14

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

15

available administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted,

16

end your case, albeit without prejudice. You must "develop a record" and present

17

it in your opposition in order to dispute any "factual record" presented by the

18

defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120

19

n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). You have the right to present any evidence to show that you

20

did exhaust your available administrative remedies before coming to federal

21

court. Such evidence may include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed

22

under penalty of perjury by you or others who have personal knowledge of

23

relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents – documents accompanied by a

24

declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other

25

sworn papers such as answers to interrogatories or depositions; (3) statements in

26

your complaint insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show

27
28

5

1

that you have personal knowledge of the matters state therein. In considering a

2

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, the court can decide disputed issues of

3

fact with regard to this portion of the case. Stratton, 697 F.3d at 1008-09.

4

(The Rand and Wyatt/Stratton notices above do not excuse defendants'

5

obligation to serve said notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for

6

failure to exhaust available administrative remedies and motions for summary

7

judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935.)
d.

8
9

Defendants must serve and file a reply to an opposition not

more than 14 days after the opposition is served and filed.
e.

10

The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the

11

reply is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a

12

later date.

13

3.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of

14

Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

16

4.

All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on

17

defendants, or defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing

18

a true copy of the document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

19

5.

It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must

20

keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply

21

with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the

22

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

23

SO ORDERED.

24

DATED:

June 12, 2013
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

25
26
N:\Martin, G.12-3193.serve.wpd

27
28

6