Climmons v. Martel et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/7/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012)

1
2

*E-Filed 11/7/12*
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

7
8
9

LARRY E. CLIMMONS,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORDER OF SERVICE;

v.

11
12

No. C 12-3357 RS (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS
TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION;

M. MARTEL, et al.,
Defendants.

13

/

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

14
15

INTRODUCTION

16

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

17

prisoner. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

18

Defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion on or

19

before February 7, 2013, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that

20

defendants are to adhere to the new notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of

21

the conclusion of this order.

22
23
24

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

25

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

26

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

27

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

28
No. C 12-3357 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

1

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

2

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

3

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

4
5

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

6

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

7

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

8

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

9

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

11

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

13

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

14

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

15

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

B.

17

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendants, Matthew Cate, Secretary of the Department of

18

Corrections, and M. Martel, Kelly Mitchell, Lt. H. Williams, C.P. Young, R. Shimoda, Y.

19

Glee, and E. Facio, his former jailors at San Quentin State Prison, violated his right to due

20

process in connection with a disciplinary proceeding. Liberally construed, this claim is

21

cognizable under § 1983.

22

CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

24

1.

The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States

25

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter, all

26

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Matthew Cate, Secretary of the

27

Department of Corrections, and M. Martel, Kelly Mitchell, Lt. H. Williams, C.P. Young, R.

28
No. C 12-3357 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

2

1

Shimoda, Y. Glee, and E. Facio, plaintiff’s former jailors at San Quentin State Prison. The

2

Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order to the California

3

Attorney General’s Office.
2.

4

No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall file

5

a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in the

6

complaint found to be cognizable above.

7

a.

If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

8

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

9

defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

315 F.3d 1108, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810

11

(2003).

12

b.

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

13

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

14

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

15

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the opinion

16

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to

17

the date the summary judgment motion is due.

18

3.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and

19

served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ motion is

20

filed.

21
22
23

a.

In the event the defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:
The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the

24

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground you have not exhausted your administrative

25

remedies. The motion will, if granted, result in the dismissal of your case. When a party you

26

are suing makes a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly

27

supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you may not simply

28
No. C 12-3357 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

3

1

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

2

depositions, answers to interrogatories, or documents, that contradict the facts shown in the

3

defendant’s declarations and documents and show that you have in fact exhausted your

4

claims. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if

5

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

6
7
8

In the event defendants file a motion for summary judgment,

the Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to plaintiffs:

21

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they
seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary
judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no
genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any
fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary
judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.
When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is
properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot
simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific
facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated
documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the
defendants’ declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue
of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition,
summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary
judgment is granted in favor of defendants, your case will be dismissed and
there will be no trial. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998)
(en banc). Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party
opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing
triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff
is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for
summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by plaintiff to the granting
of the motion, and granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v.
Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994).

22

4.

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

b.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

23
24
25

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
5.

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.

26
27
28
No. C 12-3357 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

4

1

6.

All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on

2

defendants, or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy

3

of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

4

7.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

5

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local

6

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

7

8.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

8

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

9

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
9.

Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.
10.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs

14

be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions

15

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or

16

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, No. 09-15548, slip op. 7871, 7874

17

(9th Cir. July 6, 2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when

18

they file and serve any motion for summary judgment:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek
to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.
Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary
judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no
genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any
fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary
judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.
When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is
properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot
simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific
facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated
documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the
defendants’ declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue
of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition,
summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary

28
No. C 12-3357 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

5

1
2
3
4

judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 7, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. C 12-3357 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

6