Ellis v. Martinez

Filing 6

ORDER of Service. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/31/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BENJAMIN ELLIS,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER OF SERVICE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-4278 EMC (pr)

J. MARTINEZ, correctional officer,

12

Defendants.
____________________________________/

13
14
15

I.

INTRODUCTION

16

Benjamin Ellis, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, filed this pro se civil

17

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28

18

U.S.C. § 1915A.

19
20

II.

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Ellis claims that correctional officer J. Martinez used excessive force and

21

was deliberately indifferent to his safety on February 1, 2012. The complaint alleges the following:

22

Ellis, who was a paraplegic in a wheelchair, exited the building in which he was housed to go to the

23

morning yard with other inmates on February 1, 2012. After Ellis was searched, C/O Martinez

24

grabbed his wheelchair and pushed him back into the building in which he was housed. Once inside

25

the building, Martinez "ramm[ed] the wheelchair into the closed steel door of 'C' pod and its

26

connecting wall." Docket # 1, p. 7. Martinez then walked away. Later that morning, Ellis returned

27

to the yard. Martinez pushed him back into the building again, although there was no use of force

28

1

this time. Ellis' left hand was sprained and his left shoulder was hurt as a result of being rammed

2

into the door while in a wheelchair.

3

III.

4

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks

5

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

7

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

8

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro

9

se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699
(9th Cir. 1990).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right

12

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation was

13

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

14

(1988).

15

The complaint in this action alleges that correctional officer Martinez's conduct amounted to

16

both excessive force and deliberate indifference to Ellis' safety. The Eighth Amendment's

17

prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments protects an inmate from force used maliciously and

18

sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. See generally Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6

19

(1992). Liberally construed, the complaint states a § 1983 claim against Defendant Martinez for the

20

use of excessive force by allegedly ramming Ellis and his wheelchair into a door.

21

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments also requires that

22

prison officials take reasonable measures for the safety of inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511

23

U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements

24

are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is,

25

subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate's safety. See id. at 834. Liberally construed, the

26

complaint states a § 1983 claim against Defendant Martinez for deliberate indifference to Ellis'

27

safety by allegedly ramming Ellis and his wheelchair into a door.

28

2

1
2
3
4

IV.
1.

CONCLUSION

The complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim against correctional officer J.

Martinez for an Eighth Amendment violation.
2.

The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

5

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of all the documents in the

6

case file upon correctional officer J. Martinez, who apparently works at Salinas Valley State Prison.

7
8

3.

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

9

a.

No later than May 10, 2013, Defendant must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

be resolved by summary judgment, Defendant must so inform the Court prior to the date the motion

12

is due. If Defendant files a motion for summary judgment, Defendant must provide to Plaintiff a

13

new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time he files such a motion.

14

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). If Defendant files a motion to dismiss for

15

non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, Defendant must provide to Plaintiff a notice regarding

16

motions to dismiss for non-exhaustion procedures at the time he files such a motion. See Stratton v.

17

Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012).

18

b.

Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

19

must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than June 7, 2013. Plaintiff must

20

bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this order as he

21

prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also must bear in mind the

22

notice and warning regarding motions to dismiss for non-exhaustion provided later in this order as

23

he prepares his opposition to any motion to dismiss.

24
25
26

c.

If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than June 21, 2013.
4.

Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for

27

motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss for non-exhaustion of administrative

28

remedies:

3

1

The defendants may make 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, your case will be dismissed and
there will be no trial. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th
Cir. 1998).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

The defendants may file a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies instead of, or in addition to, a motion for
summary judgment. A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is similar to a motion for summary judgment
in that the court will consider materials beyond the pleadings. You
have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to
show that you did exhaust your administrative remedies or were
excused from doing so. The evidence may be in the form of
declarations (that is, statements of fact signed under penalty of
perjury) or authenticated documents (that is, documents accompanied
by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are
authentic), or discovery documents such as answers to interrogatories
or depositions. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to
exhaust, the court can decide disputed issues of fact with regard to this
portion of the case. If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is
granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. See
generally Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d at 1008.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

5.

All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on a Defendant's

22

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant's counsel. The Court may disregard

23

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a Defendant's

24

counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to Defendant,

25

but once a Defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to counsel rather than

26

directly to that Defendant.

27
28

4

1

6.

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No

2

further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required

3

before the parties may conduct discovery.

4

7.

Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

5

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely

6

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

7

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every

8

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

9

Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

8.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: January 31, 2013

15

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5