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)

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