Candler v. Santa Rita County Jail Watch Commander et al

Filing 4

ORDER SERVING AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 MARK ANTHONY CANDLER, 4 5 6 7 8 No. C 11-01992 CW (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER SERVING AMENDED COMPLAINT v. SANTA RITA COUNTY JAILS WATCH COMMANDER, et al., Defendants. ________________________________/ 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State 11 Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983, complaining about his conditions of confinement during the 13 period of his incarceration as a pretrial detainee at the Santa 14 Rita County Jail (SRCJ). 15 $350.00 filing fee. 16 At the time of filing, Plaintiff paid the Thereafter, the Court conducted a preliminary screening of the 17 complaint as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. By Order filed 18 October 7, 2011, the Court found Plaintiff had failed to provide 19 sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether his allegations 20 stated a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. 21 Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Therefore, the 22 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's amended complaint. 23 Therein, he names as Defendants SRCJ Watch Commander John Doe, SRCJ 24 Commanding Officer Lt. D. Sanchas, SRCJ Sgt. D.L. Snider (Badge 25 #1140), and SRCJ Sgt. B.S. Quin (Badge #1319). 26 Plaintiff alleges that from June 17, 2008 through December 13, 27 2010, Defendants held him in disciplinary lock-up without 28 disciplinary charges or a hearing, and did not provide him with 1 cleaning materials for his cell or with the requisite minimum of 2 three hours of exercise a week. 3 March 2009 through December 2010, he routinely went for more than 4 seventy-two hours without a shower. 5 placed him in such adverse conditions of confinement not because of 6 his conduct but, instead, in retaliation and at the request of the 7 District Attorney. 8 process and that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. 9 When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his Additionally, he alleges that from Plaintiff claims Defendants He claims the violation of his right to due United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 confinement, the proper inquiry is whether the conditions amount to 11 punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 12 Amendment. 13 The state may detain a pretrial detainee "to ensure his presence at 14 trial and may subject him to the restrictions and conditions of the 15 detention facility so long as those conditions and restrictions do 16 not amount to punishment or otherwise violate the Constitution." 17 Id. at 536-37. 18 related to a legitimate goal, i.e., if it is arbitrary or 19 purposeless, the court may infer that the purpose of the action is 20 punishment. See id. at 539. 21 See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). If a restriction or condition is not reasonably Here, Plaintiff's allegations, when liberally construed, state 22 a cognizable claim that his conditions of confinement at the SRCJ 23 amounted to punishment, in violation of due process.1 Plaintiff's 24 1 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference – the standard applied to Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims – is a component of his due process claim. "The requirement of conduct that amounts to 'deliberate indifference' provides an appropriate balance of the pretrial detainees' right to not be punished with the deference given to prison officials to manage the prisons." Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 2 1 claim may proceed against Defendants Sanchas, Snider and Quin. 2 Plaintiff's claim against the SRCJ Watch Commander cannot proceed 3 at this time, however, because that Defendant is identified only as 4 "John Doe." 5 substitute the correct name of the SRCJ Watch Commander should he 6 learn that information in the future. 7 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff may move to amend his complaint to CONCLUSION 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 See Gillespie v. Civiletti, For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and 11 Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver 12 of Service of Summons, a copy of the amended complaint and all 13 attachments thereto (docket no. 3) and a copy of this Order to the 14 following Defendants at the Santa Rita County Jail: Commanding 15 Officer Lt. D. Sanchas, Sgt. D.L. Snider (Badge #1140), and Sgt. 16 B.S. Quin (Badge #1319). 17 The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a copy of the complaint 18 and a copy of this Order to the Office of County Counsel of Alameda 19 County. 20 Plaintiff. 21 2. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules 22 of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary 23 costs of service of the summons and complaint. 24 if Defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the 25 Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, 26 fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such 27 service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and 28 return the waiver form. Pursuant to Rule 4, If service is waived, this action will 3 1 proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that the 2 waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), 3 Defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before 4 sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was 5 sent. 6 if formal service of summons is necessary.) 7 to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that 8 more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to 9 waiver of service of the summons. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required Defendants are asked If service is waived after the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 date provided in the Notice but before Defendants have been 11 personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the 12 date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days 13 from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 14 3. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with 15 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 16 schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: 17 a. The following briefing No later than ninety (90) days from the date their 18 answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment 19 or other dispositive motion. 20 adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 22 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they 23 shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment 24 motion is due. 25 served on Plaintiff. 26 b. The motion shall be supported by If Defendants are of the All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion 27 shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later 28 than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion: The defendant has 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 defendant's 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 [in favor of the defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 18 See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 19 banc). 20 Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) 22 (party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence 23 showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element 24 of his claim). 25 burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared 26 to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files 27 his opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. 28 may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the 5 Such evidence 1 the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn 2 declaration. 3 simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint. 4 5 c. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than thirty (30) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 6 d. 7 the reply brief is due. 8 unless the Court so orders at a later date. 9 4. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date No hearing will be held on the motion Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11 to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose 12 Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison. 13 5. Leave of the Court pursuant All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be 14 served on Defendants, or Defendants' counsel once counsel has been 15 designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants or 16 Defendants' counsel. 17 6. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. 18 Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and 19 must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 20 7. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable 21 extensions will be granted. 22 must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline 23 sought to be extended. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 DATED: Any motion for an extension of time 4/11/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 6

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?