Patkins v. Lisk

Filing 4

ORDER of Service. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/9/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF SERVICE

v.
A. LISK,
Defendant.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 16-cv-04347-EMC

DAVID C. PATKINS,

I.

13
14

INTRODUCTION

David C. Patkins, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California,

15

filed a pro se civil rights complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now

16

before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
II.

17

BACKGROUND

18

In his complaint, Mr. Patkins alleges that correctional officer (C/O) A. Lisk retaliated

19

against him because of his exercise of his First Amendment rights. The complaint alleges the

20

following:

21

Mr. Patkins has worked as a morning cook at the prison since April 2014, and C/O Lisk

22

has worked in the culinary department but is not his supervisor. C/O Lisk verbally insulted Mr.

23

Patkins for a long time. On November 10, 2014, C/O Lisk called Mr. Patkins a thief when he was

24

putting an apple in his lunch bag. He complained to C/O Lisk that she was constantly harassing

25

him. They argued, and Mr. Patkins said he would file a complaint if she kept harassing him.

26

Because of this, C/O Lisk thereafter retaliated against him in numerous ways. Her retaliatory

27

actions included causing Mr. Patkins to get the worst job assignments; occasionally causing him to

28

miss his meals; occasionally causing him to miss work; on several occasions writing false rule

1

violation reports against him; denying him access to priority ducats for mandatory appointments;

2

and trying to get his cellmate to move out. Mr. Patkins wrote several inmate appeals during the

3

course of the retaliation, but these did not end C/O Lisk’s retaliatory efforts.
III.

4
5

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d

11

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

6

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

13

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

14

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487

15

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

An inmate has a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials without

17

being subjected to retaliation in response thereto. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th

18

Cir. 2012). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five

19

basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

20

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s

21

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate

22

correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted).

23

Liberally construed, the pro se complaint states a cognizable claim against C/O Lisk for

24

retaliation, as she allegedly took numerous adverse actions against Mr. Patkins in response to both

25

his statement of intent to file an inmate appeal and the inmate appeals that he did file.
IV.

26
27
28

1.

CONCLUSION

The complaint states a cognizable claim against the only defendant, C/O Lisk, for

retaliation.
2

1

2.

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

2

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

3

case file upon correctional officer A. Lisk, who apparently is employed at the Correctional

4

Training Facility in Soledad.

5
6

3.

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

dispositive motions is set:
a.

7

No later than March 10, 2017, defendant must file and serve a motion for

8

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

9

be resolved by summary judgment, defendant must so inform the court prior to the date the motion

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

12
For the Northern District of California

is due. If defendant files a motion for summary judgment, defendant must provide to plaintiff a

11

United States District Court

10

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012).
b.

13

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

14

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than April 3, 2017. Plaintiff

15

must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this

16

order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment.
c.

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

served no later than April 17, 2017.
4.

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

motions for summary judgment:
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
3

3

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).

4

If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

5

he is seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if a

6

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the

7

plaintiff’s case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

1
2

8
9

5.

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

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

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

12
For the Northern District of California

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

11

United States District Court

10

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

13

counsel rather than directly to that Defendant.

14

6.

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

15

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required

16

before the parties may conduct discovery.

17

7.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22
23
24

8.

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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: January 9, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
4