Williams v. Ahern et al
Filing
13
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 4/22/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GREGORY TYRONE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-03955-JCS (PR)
8
v.
ORDER OF SERVICE;
9
GREGORY AHERN, et al.,
11
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT
TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION
OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION;
12
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
13
14
INTRODUCTION
15
Plaintiff, a former California state pretrial detainee, has filed this federal civil rights
16
action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against the sheriff and
17
employees of Alameda County. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to
18
amend. Plaintiff since has filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 12.)
19
The amended complaint states a cognizable claim. Therefore, in response to the
20
complaint, defendant Ahern is directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such
21
motion on or before July 25, 2016. The Court further directs that defendant is to adhere to
22
the notice provisions detailed in Sections 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
26
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
27
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
28
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
1
upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
2
from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
3
See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
4
5
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
12
(9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
13
essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
14
was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
15
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
16
B.
Legal Claims
17
Plaintiff alleges that on June 12, 2015, while he was a pretrial detainee at the Santa
18
Rita Jail, a food tray, which had been “heated excessively,” exploded in his hand, causing
19
him to suffer second and third degree burns. (Am. Compl. at 3-4.) He alleges such an
20
incident could not have happened in the absence of negligence and that “jail officials
21
encouraged that incident by instructing the kitchen workers to unreasonably heat the food,
22
and they did not have any precautions in place to circumvent that kind of injury.” (Id. at
23
4.) Defendants also failed to have appropriate medical facilities and procedures in place
24
for treating his injuries, and failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment. (Id.)
25
Plaintiff names as defendants Gregory Ahern, Sheriff of Alameda County; a Doe
26
defendant, a sheriff’s deputy; Rivera, a fellow inmate; and the County of Alameda.
27
28
His claim against Ahern, for failing to have adequate medical facilities and
procedures, is cognizable under section 1983, when liberally construed.
2
1
The remaining claims are DISMISSED. His fellow inmate Rivera cannot be sued
2
under section 1983 because he is a private, not a state, actor. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446
3
U.S. 635, 640 (1980). This claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Rivera is
4
TERMINATED as a defendant in this action.
5
His claims of negligence are DISMISSED with leave to amend. If plaintiff finds
6
through discovery the names of the relevant deputies or other jail employees, he may move
7
to amend and refile this claim.
8
His claims that the guards and medical staff failed to provide adequate medical care
9
are DISMISSED with leave to amend. If plaintiff finds through discovery the names of the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
relevant deputies or other jail employees, he may move to amend and refile this claim.
His claim against the County of Alameda under a Monell theory of liability is
12
DISMISSED with leave to amend. Local governments are “persons” subject to liability
13
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see
14
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); however, a municipality may
15
not be held vicariously liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the
16
theory of respondeat superior, see Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403
17
(1997); Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a
18
violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a
19
constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy;
20
(3) that the policy amounted to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional
21
rights; and (4) that the policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation.
22
See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997).
23
“Official municipal policy includes the decisions of a government’s lawmakers, the acts of
24
its policymaking officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have
25
the force of law.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011).
26
Plaintiff’s allegations fail to show that there was a written or unwritten policy that
27
tolerated, urged, encouraged, supported or ratified the failure of the sheriff to have
28
adequate medical facilities. Mere supposition and speculation that there are such policies
3
1
or customs are insufficient. If plaintiff finds evidence of such a policy through discovery,
2
he may move to amend and refile this claim.
CONCLUSION
3
4
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
5
1.
The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and a Magistrate Judge
6
jurisdiction consent form and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of
7
fees, the summons, the consent form, a copy of the operative complaint in this matter
8
(Docket No. 12), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Gregory Ahern,
9
Sheriff of Alameda County. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office.
2.
No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendant shall file
12
a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in
13
the complaint found to be cognizable above.
a.
14
If defendant elects to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff
15
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.
16
§ 1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by
17
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
b.
18
Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate
19
factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
20
Civil Procedure. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor
21
qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the
22
opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the
23
Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
24
3.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court
25
and served on defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendant’s
26
motion is filed.
27
4.
28
Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after
plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
4
1
2
3
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
4
defendant, or defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true
5
copy of the document to defendant or defendant’s counsel.
6
7.
Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
7
Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local
8
Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
9
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
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
12
prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
13
14
15
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 decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs
16
be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment
17
motions at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of
18
process or otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939–41
19
(9th Cir. 2012). Defendant shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they he
20
files and serves any motion for summary judgment:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
5
5
sworn testimony) you cann simply rely on wh your co
),
not
hat
omplaint sa
ays.
d,
t
ecific facts i declarati
in
ions, deposi
itions, answ
wers
Instead you must set out spe
to inter
rrogatories, or authen
,
nticated doc
cuments, as provided in Rule 56
s
6(e),
that contradict the facts shown in the defen
t
s
ndants’ dec
clarations and
ments and sh
how that there is a gen
nuine issue of materia fact for tr
al
rial.
docum
If you do not subm your ow evidence in opposi
mit
wn
ition, summ
mary judgment,
ropriate, may be ent
m
tered again you. I summary judgment is
nst
If
y
t
if appr
granted your case will be dis
d,
e
smissed and there will be no trial.
d
.
6
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1
v
9
3
1998).
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: April 22, 2016
l
________
__________
_________
_
JOSEPH C. SPERO
O
agistrate Jud
dge
Chief Ma
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT
5
NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA
6
7
GREGORY TYRONE WILLIAMS,
G
T
W
Case No. 1
15-cv-03955
5-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE
9
10
GREGORY AHERN, et al.,
G
A
a
Defendants
s.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
n
VED a true a correct c
and
copy(ies) of the attached by placing
d,
That on April 22, 2016, I SERV
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addressed to the pers
i
ope
d
son(s) herein
nafter listed, by
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.
16
17
18
Gre
egory Tyron Williams
ne
596 Shattuck Avenue
65
Oa
akland, CA 94609
9
19
20
Da
ated: April 22 2016
2,
21
22
23
24
25
Su
usan Y. Soon
ng
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict
By
y:_________
___________
_______
K
Karen Hom, D
Deputy Clerk to the
k
H
Honorable JO
OSEPH C. SP
PERO
26
27
28
7
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?