Martinez, Jr. v. Brown, Jr. et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/10/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013)

1
2

*E-Filed 12/10/13*
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER OF SERVICE;

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 13-0556 RS (PR)

JUAN ANGEL MARTINEZ, JR.,

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

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

14

Defendants.
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

15

/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

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

19

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

20

motion on or before March 16, 2014, unless an extension is granted. The Court further

21

directs that defendants are to adhere to the new notice provisions detailed in Sections

22

2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.

23
24
25

DISCUSSION
A.

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

26

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

27

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

28
No. C 13-0566 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

B.

18

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that his detention in the Secured Housing Unit at Pelican Bay State

19

Prison violates his (1) First, (2) Eighth, and (3) Fourteenth Amendment rights. Liberally

20

construed, these claims are cognizable under § 1983. He names as defendants (1) Governor

21

Edmund G. Brown, (2) Matthew Cate, director of the California Department of Corrections

22

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), (3) Anthony Chaus, Chief of the CDCR’s Office of

23

Correctional Safety, (4) Pelican Bay Wardens G.D. Lewis, P.T. Smith, and D. Bradbury,

24

(5) Pelican Bay Correctional Officers D. Jacquez, K. Getz, M. Townsend, K.L. McGuyer,

25

J. McMillan, and S. Burris, (6) CDCR Appeals Examiners K.J. Allen and D. Foston,

26

(7) M. Beuchner, an agent for the CDCR’s Special Services Unit, and (8) A. Quinones and

27

W. Shaw, CDCR gang investigators at Corcoran State Prison.

28
No. C 13-0566 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

2

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

3

1.

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

4

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

5

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon (1) Governor Edmund G. Brown,

6

(2) Matthew Cate, director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

7

(“CDCR”), (3) Anthony Chaus, Chief of the CDCR’s Office of Correctional Safety,

8

(4) Pelican Bay Wardens G.D. Lewis, P.T. Smith, and D. Bradbury, (5) Pelican Bay

9

Correctional Officers D. Jacquez, K. Getz, M. Townsend, K.L. McGuyer, J. McMillan, and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

S. Burris, (6) CDCR Appeals Examiners K.J. Allen and D. Foston, (7) M. Beuchner, an agent

11

for the CDCR’s Special Services Unit, and (8) A. Quinones and W. Shaw, CDCR gang

12

investigators at Corcoran State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the

13

complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

14

2.

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

15

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

16

complaint found to be cognizable above.

17

a.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

(2003).

22

b.

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

the date the summary judgment motion is due.

28
No. C 13-0566 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

3

3.

1

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

2

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

3

filed.
a.

4
5

In the event the defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:

6

The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

16
17
18
19
20

4.

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.
6.

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

21

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

22

of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

23

7.

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

24

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

25

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

26
27

8.

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

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

28
No. C 13-0566 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

4

1

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

2

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

3
4
5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

they file and serve any motion for summary judgment:
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, 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: December 10, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

No. C 13-0566 RS (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE

5