Sims v. Sullivan et al
Filing
7
ORDER OF SERVICE. Dispositive Motion due by 6/2/2017. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 2, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Copy of Complaint, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
RICKEY LEE SIMS,
Plaintiff,
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER OF SERVICE
v.
10
11
Case No. 16-cv-06779-JST (PR)
P. SULLIVAN, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) proceeding pro se, has
14
15
filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed
16
in forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28
17
U.S.C. § 1915A.
DISCUSSION
18
19
20
A.
Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks
21
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28
22
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any
23
claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek
24
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
25
(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
26
Dep‟t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
27
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
1
statement need only “„give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
2
which it rests.‟” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although
3
in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff‟s
4
obligation to provide the grounds of his „entitle[ment] to relief‟ requires more than labels and
5
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .
6
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
7
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint
8
must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
9
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.
12
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
13
B.
14
Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that in March of 2016, he and his cellmate, who he refers to as “Inmate
15
Curry,” were not getting along. During the week of March 6, 2016, Inmate Curry asked defendant
16
correctional officer G. Marquez for a cell move. Marquez informed Inmate Curry that in order to
17
receive a cell move, Inmate Curry and plaintiff would have to fight. On March 16 or 17, 2016,
18
Inmate Curry once again asked Marquez for a cell move, and Marquez once again informed
19
Inmate Curry that he and plaintiff would have to fight. As a result of Marquez‟s instructions,
20
plaintiff and Inmate Curry assaulted each other on March 12, March 16, and March 18, leaving
21
them both injured. When liberally construed, these allegations are sufficient to state a cognizable
22
claim against Marquez for deliberate indifference to plaintiff‟s safety in violation of the Eighth
23
Amendment.
24
Plaintiff also alleges that on March 18, 2016, defendant correctional officer S. Zavala was
25
working in the tower of the building where plaintiff and Inmate Curry were housed. Zavala fired a
26
wooden block round at plaintiff‟s right leg, purportedly to break up the fight between plaintiff and
27
Inmate Curry. At the time the shot was fired, plaintiff and Inmate Curry were not actively
28
fighting. The shot broke plaintiff‟s tibia. When liberally construed, these allegations are
2
1
sufficient to state a cognizable claim against Zavala for excessive force in violation of the Eighth
2
Amendment.
3
Finally, plaintiff names as defendants SVSP Lieutenant J. Stevenson and SVSP Captain P.
4
Sullivan. The crux of plaintiff‟s allegations against Stevenson and Sullivan is that he believes
5
they are responsible for plaintiff‟s injuries because they supervised Marquez and Zavala. Plaintiff
6
has failed to present sufficient allegations linking defendants Stevenson and Sullivan to any
7
constitutional violation; therefore they will be dismissed from this action. Even at the pleading
8
stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was
9
personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Should plaintiff wish to amend his complaint to include defendants
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Stevenson and Sullivan, he must do so within 28 days of the filing date of this Order. Plaintiff is
12
advised that in order to state a cognizable claim against a defendant, he must show that the
13
defendant‟s actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected
14
right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff is cautioned that there is
15
no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. See Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991,
16
1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizing that a supervisor may be liable under § 1983 only upon a
17
showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal
18
connection between the supervisor‟s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation).
CONCLUSION
19
20
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
21
1.
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff‟s complaint states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims as against
defendants Marquez and Zavala.
2.
Plaintiff's claims against defendants Stevenson and Sullivan are DISMISSED
without prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate these defendants from the docket in this action.
3.
The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without
26
prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint (dkt. no. 1), and a copy of this order upon
27
Correctional Officer G. Marquez and Correctional Officer S. Zavala at Salinas Valley State
28
Prison.
3
The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and this order to the California
1
2
Attorney General‟s Office.
4.
3
In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:
a.
4
No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants must file
5
and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion for summary
6
judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and
7
adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684
8
F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th
9
Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1
If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
defendants must so inform the Court prior to the date the motion is due.
b.
12
Plaintiff‟s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion
13
must be filed with the Court and served upon defendants no later than 28 days from the date the
14
motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment
15
provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment.
c.
16
Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the
17
opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No
18
hearing will be held on the motion.
5.
19
Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the
20
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must
21
do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be
22
granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
If defendants assert that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as
required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendants must raise such argument in a motion for summary
judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit‟s opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.
2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held
that failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
should be raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Such a motion should
also incorporate a modified Wyatt notice in light of Albino. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d
1108, 1120, n.14 (9th Cir. 2003); Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012).
4
1
any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is
2
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing
3
makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn
4
testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out
5
specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,
6
as provided in Rule 56(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants‟ declarations and
7
documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit
8
your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you.
9
If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).
(The Rand notice above does not excuse defendants‟ obligation to serve said notice again
concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).
6.
All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants‟
14
counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants‟ counsel. The Court may disregard
15
any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until defendants‟
16
counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to
17
defendants, but once defendants are represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to
18
counsel rather than directly to defendants.
19
7.
Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
20
No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required
21
before the parties may conduct discovery.
22
8.
Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the
23
Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court‟s orders in a timely
24
fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant
25
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every
26
pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.
27
28
9.
Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought
to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.
5
1
2
3
4
10.
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.
Dated: March 2, 2017
5
6
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
7
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
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?