(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)

Download PDF
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?