Robertson v. Muniz
Filing
6
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 6/21/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
LA’SANE LEE ROBERTSON,
7
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER OF SERVICE;
v.
9
W. L. MUNIZ,
10
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-01889-JCS (PR)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS
TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION
OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
12
13
INTRODUCTION
14
In this federal civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state
15
16
17
18
19
prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges that correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by keeping him in restraints and in unsanitary
conditions for up to 24 hours.1 The complaint is now before the Court for review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The complaint states cognizable claims. Therefore, in response to the complaint,
20
21
22
23
defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion on or
before September 19, 2016. The Court further directs that defendants are to adhere to the
notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.
DISCUSSION
24
25
A.
Standard of Review
26
1
27
28
Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 4.) The magistrate
judge, then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been
served or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530,
532 (5th Cir. 1995).
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
1
2
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
3
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
4
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
5
upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
6
from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
7
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
8
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
10
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
12
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
13
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
14
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
15
be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
16
(9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
17
essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
18
was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
19
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
20
B.
21
Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that starting on August 7, 2015 Salinas Valley Correctional Officers
22
Stevenson, Ramey, Heard, Soto and Graven violated his Eighth Amendment rights when
23
they kept him in restraints for over 12 hours; refused to allow him to use the bathroom
24
during that time; deprived him of sleep; refused to feed him for nearly 24 hours; deprived
25
him of water and his inhaler for much of that time; and kept in unsanitary cells for much of
26
the time. When liberally construed, plaintiff’s claims are cognizable under section 1983.
27
Plaintiff names W.L. Muniz as a defendant, but offers no allegations against him.
28
Accordingly, Muniz is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action.
2
CONCLUSION
1
2
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
3
1.
The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and a Magistrate Judge
4
jurisdiction consent form and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of
5
fees, a copy of the operative complaint in this matter (Docket No. 1), all attachments
6
thereto, and a copy of this order upon Salinas Valley Correctional Officers Stevenson,
7
Ramey, Heard, Soto and Graven. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the
8
complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office.
9
2.
No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall
file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
in the complaint found to be cognizable above.
a.
12
If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff
13
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.
14
§ 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by
15
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
b.
16
Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate
17
factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
18
Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor
19
qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the
20
opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the
21
Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
22
3.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court
23
and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’
24
motion is filed.
25
4.
26
27
28
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.
3
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
3
copy 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
9
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
prosecute 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 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
15
motions at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of
16
process or otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939–41
17
(9th Cir. 2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they file
18
and serves any motion for summary judgment:
19
20
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
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),
4
3
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.
4
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998).
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1
2
6
7
Dated: June 21, 2016
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
8
9
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
5
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
LA'SANE LEE ROBERTSON,
Case No. 16-cv-01889-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
10
W. L. MUNIZ,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on June 21, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
La'Sane Lee Robertson ID: ID: T61441
California Men's Colony State Prison (East)
P.O. Box 8101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93409
19
20
21
Dated: June 21, 2016
22
23
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
24
25
26
By:________________________
Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO
27
28
6
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?