(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
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?