Owens v. Mora

Filing 6

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Dispositive Motion due by 1/27/2025. Signed by Judge Rita F. Lin on 9/26/2024. (mkl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2024)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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE OWENS,

Case No. 24-cv-01940-RFL

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER
DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE A
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE
REGARDING SUCH MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

v.
SERGIO MORA,
Defendant.

Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Clause Owens alleges that Sergio Mora, a correctional officer at Correctional
Training Facility, retaliated against him. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these
allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Owens has stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Mora. The
Court directs defendant Mora to file in response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a
notice regarding such motion, on or before January 27, 2025.
DISCUSSION
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 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 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

1

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 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 (9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B.

Legal Claims
Owens alleges that in July 2023 at Correctional Training Facility, Sergio Mora, a

correctional officer, filed a false rules violation report against Owens in retaliation for Owens’s
pending Lawsuit against Mora’s colleagues. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7.) When liberally construed,
Owens has stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Mora.
C.

In Forma Pauperis Application
Although Owens filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2), he later

paid the filing fee for this action (Dkt. No. 5). Owens’s in forma pauperis application therefore is
DENIED as MOOT.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
1.

The Court orders service of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and all attachments

thereto, on defendant Sergio Mora, a correctional officer at Correctional Training Facility, and
orders this defendant to respond to the cognizable claim raised in the complaint.

2

2.

Service on this defendant shall proceed under the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR
custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via email the
following documents: the complaint (Docket No. 1) and its attachments; this order; a CDCR
Report of E-Service Waiver form; and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this
order on the plaintiff.
3.

No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall

provide the Court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which
defendant(s) listed in this Order will be waiving service of process without the need for service
by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service
or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service
Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the
Court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service.
4.

Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare

for each defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service
Waiver a USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms
and copies of this Order, the summons, and the complaint for service upon each defendant who
has not waived service.
5.

On or before January 27, 2025, defendant shall file a motion for summary

judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to be
cognizable above.
a.

If defendant elects to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

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

§

1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by Albino v.
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
b.

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual

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

3

Procedure. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified
immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the opinion that this case
cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date the
summary judgment motion is due.
6.

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

served on defendant no later than forty-two (42) days from the date defendant’s motion is filed.
7.

Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after

plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
8.

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.
9.

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

or on defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the
document to defendant or defendant’s counsel.
10.

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

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is
required before the parties may conduct discovery.
Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in their
medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974); 15
California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations Manual §§
13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. Requests to review these
files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to prison officials, not to the Court.
Plaintiff may also use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the
opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail officials
that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this Order. Such requests must be made
directly to jail officials, not to the Court.
11.

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

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

4

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
12.

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.
13.

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

“notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions at the time of
filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or otherwise before the
motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendant shall
provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves any motion for summary
judgment:
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, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 2024
_________________________
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge

5