Maldonado v. Williams et al

Filing 3

ORDER OF SERVICE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/19/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/19/2016: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GREGORIO A. MALDONADO, Case No. 16-cv-04406-SI Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER OF SERVICE 9 10 Re: Dkt. No. 1 WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Gregorio Maldonado, currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, filed this pro se civil 14 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to complain about conditions of confinement at San Quentin 15 State Prison, where he earlier was housed. His complaint is now before the court for review under 16 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 17 BACKGROUND 18 19 The complaint alleges the following: 20 On or about January 30, 2013, Maldonado arrived at San Quentin State Prison, and was 21 housed together in the same unit with inmate Rodriguez. On or about February 7, 2013, 22 correctional officer (C/O) Williams instructed Maldonado to move away from Rodriguez for 23 security reasons. 24 Inmate Rodriguez was later moved by C/O Williams to another section in the same prison 25 unit. Being moved infuriated inmate Rodriguez, “a ZETA prison gang member.” Docket No. 1 at 26 3. On or about April 16, 2013, inmate Rodriguez paid $50.00 to be re-housed in 4-W-24 housing 27 unit, and was moved back into the cell where Maldonado was housed. Rodriguez said it was his 28 cell, and immediately threatened Maldonado with a shank and told him to move. 1 2 On April 18, 2013, Maldonado told C/O Lee about inmate Rodriguez’s threats and that Rodriguez was using drugs heavily. C/O Lee ignored Maldonado’s plea for help. 3 On May 9, 2013, inmate Ramos “also [a] ZETA gang member,” approached and offered to 4 let Maldonado move into his cell. Maldonado moved in, whereupon inmate Ramos robbed him of 5 almost $100 worth of canteen items and threatened to kill him. Id. at 4. 6 On or about May 17, 2013, Maldonado informed C/O Williams of the death threats by the 7 ZETA prison gang, particularly inmate Ramos. C/O Williams ignored Maldonado’s warning that 8 his life was in danger and failed to provide him with protective custody. On or about May 21, 2013, inmate Ramos again threatened to kill Maldonado. Maldonado 10 informed C/O Cano that his life was in danger form the ZETA prison gang. C/O Cano failed to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 provide him with protective custody. 12 13 On or about May 21, 2013, inmate Ramos assaulted Maldonado with a shank in the cell. Inmate Rodriguez was present at the time of the assault. Maldonado was injured. 14 DISCUSSION 15 16 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 17 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 19 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 20 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 21 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 22 Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). See id. at § 23 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 24 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 25 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 26 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 27 The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment requires that prison 28 officials take reasonable measures for the safety of inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 2 1 825, 834 (1994). In particular, officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence at the hands 2 of other inmates. See id. at 833. A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two 3 requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the 4 official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate's safety. See id. at 834. To be liable 5 in a failure to prevent harm situation, the official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to 6 inmate safety. See id. at 837. 7 Liberally construed, the pro se complaint states a cognizable claim against C/O Williams, 8 C/O Lee, and C/O Cano for deliberate indifference to Maldonado’s safety. The complaint alleges 9 that Maldonado alerted each of these defendants to a danger to his safety, and that each of them 10 failed and refused to take actions to protect him. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CONCLUSION 12 13 1. Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim against C/O 14 Williams, C/O Lee, and C/O Cano for violating Maldonado’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. 15 All other claims and defendants are dismissed. 16 2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 17 prepayment of fees, the summons, and a copy of the complaint, and a copy of this order upon the 18 following three defendants, all of whom apparently work at San Quentin State Prison: 19 - C/O Williams - C/O Lee - C/O Cano 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for dispositive motions is set: a. No later than March 10, 2017, defendants must file and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendants must so inform the court prior to the date the motion is due. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment, defendants must provide to plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time they file such a 28 3 1 motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). b. 2 Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 3 must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than April 7, 2017. Plaintiff 4 must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this 5 order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. c. 6 7 8 9 10 served no later than April 21, 2017. 4. Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for motions for summary judgment: 19 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). 20 If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 21 he is seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if a 22 motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the 23 plaintiff's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 24 5. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's 25 counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard 26 any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's 27 counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to defendant, 28 but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to counsel rather 4 1 2 than directly to that defendant. 6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 4 before the parties may conduct discovery. 5 7. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the 6 court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 7 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 8 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 9 pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 19, 2016 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?