(PC) Lovell v. East Oakland Police Department et al

Filing 16

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 7/8/2024. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/09/2024. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2024) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID ANTHONY LOVELL,
Plaintiff,

8

v.

9
10

COOPER, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 23-cv-01451-WHO (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE;
ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

12
13
14

Plaintiff David Anthony Lovell III alleges defendants violated his Eighth

15
16
17
18

Amendment rights by being deliberate indifferent to his serious medical needs. His first
amended complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Lovell has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious

19
20
21
22
23

medical needs claims against East Oakland Police Officers Lara, Tellez, Iniguez, Arzate,
and Dr. Cooper at the Santa Rita Jail. The Court directs these defendants to file in
response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or
before September 3, 2024.
DISCUSSION

24
25
26
27
28

A.

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

1

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

2

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

3

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

4

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

12

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

13

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

14
15

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

16

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

17

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

18

B.

19

Legal Claims
Lovell alleges that on May 13, 2022 he was deprived of medical care after being

20

stabbed in the head. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 15 at 2.) He alleges that (i) East Oakland

21

Police Department Officers Lara and Tellez urged medical staff at Highland Hospital to

22

“not help” him and interfered with his receiving proper medical care; (ii) Officers Iniguez

23

and Arzate kept him handcuffed even though his arms were going numb; and (iii) Dr.

24

Cooper at the Santa Rita Jail failed to provide adequate medical care. (Id. at 2-3.)

25

When liberally construed, Lovell has stated Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate

26

indifference to his serious medical needs against Lara, Tellez, Iniguez, Arzate, and Cooper.

27

CONCLUSION

28

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
2

1

1.

2

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

3

matter (Dkt. No. 15), all attachments thereto, on defendants East Oakland Police Officers

4

E. Lara, D. Tellez, Iniguez, and Arzate; and on Dr. Cooper at the Santa Rita Jail, and

5

orders these defendants to respond to the cognizable claims raised in the operative

6

complaint.

7

2.

On or before September 2, 2024, defendants shall file a motion for summary

8

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

9

be cognizable above.
a.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

3.

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

21

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

22

motion is filed.

23

4.

24
25
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.
6.

All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on

defendants, or on defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true
3

1
2

7.

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

3

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

4

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

5

Plaintiff may use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the

6

opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail

7

officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this Order. Such requests must

8

be made directly to jail officials, not to the Court.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

8.

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13
14
15

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 be

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves

20

any motion for summary judgment:

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
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

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, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2024
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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