Carney v. Cuevas et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Habeas Answer or The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepa yment of fees, a copy of the operative 8 Complaint in this matter, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon L. Cuevas, G. Marquez, and C. Hernandez at Salinas Valley State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order to the California Attorney General's Office. Dispositive Motion due by 8/5/2019. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/06/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FREDERICK RYDELL CARNEY,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9

L. CUEVAS, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 18-cv-03644-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE;
ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

13
14

INTRODUCTION

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff Frederick Rydell Carney has stated Equal Protection and First Amendment
claims against three prison guards at Salinas Valley State Prison. The Court directs
defendants to file in response to the operative complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice
regarding such motion, on or before August 5, 2019. The Court further directs that
defendants comply with the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the
conclusion of this order.
DISCUSSION

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

i.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

1

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

2

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

3
4

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

5

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

6

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

7

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

8

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

9

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

12
13

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

14

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

ii.

17

Claims
Carney alleges in his amended complaint that from January 2015 to October 2016

18

Salinas Valley prison guards L. Cuevas, G. Marquez, and C. Hernandez violated his equal

19

protection rights when they allowed only Hispanic inmates to leave their cells to attend

20

their job assignments, but refused to allow Carney, an African-American, to leave his cell

21

to go to his job assignment. He also alleges that Cuevas, Marquez, and Hernandez

22

retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. When liberally construed,

23

Carney has stated equal protection and First Amendment claims against Cuevas, Marquez,

24

and Hernandez.

25

Carney’s claims against other state actors are DISMISSED (without prejudice)

26

because they are unrelated to his claims against Cuevas, Marquez, and Hernandez. See

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 (claims must be based on “the same transaction,

28

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and pose a “question of law or fact
2

1

common to all defendants.”) If Carney wishes to pursue claims against these other

2

persons, he must file a separate civil rights action.

3

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

5

1.

The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal

6

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the operative complaint in this matter

7

(Dkt. No. 8), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon L. Cuevas, G. Marquez,

8

and C. Hernandez at Salinas Valley State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies

9

of the complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

10

2.

On or before August 5, 2019, defendants shall file a motion for summary

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to

12

be cognizable above.
a.

13

If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

14

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

15

§ 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by

16

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
b.

17

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

18

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

19

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

20

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the

21

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the

22

Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

23

3.

Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

24

and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’

25

motion is filed.

26

4.

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.
3

1
2

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

3

defendants, or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true

4

copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

5

7.

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

6

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

7

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

8
9
10

8.

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.
9.

A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions

12

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or

13

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir.

14

2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they file and serve

15

any motion for summary judgment:

16
17
18
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), 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).
4

1

10.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

2

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

3

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

4

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

5
6
7
8
9

11.

The Clerk shall terminate all defendants except Cuevas, Marquez, and

Hernandez.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2019
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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