Alejandrez v. Kircher et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/7/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 LEO ALEJANDREZ, 4 Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 No. C 11-02381 CW (PR) ORDER OF SERVICE v. M. KIRCHER, et al., Defendants. ________________________________/ INTRODUCTION 9 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Corcoran State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights action 12 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the violation of his Eighth 13 and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 14 in forma pauperis has been granted. 15 His motion for leave to proceed Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim 16 are alleged to have occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison 17 (SVSP), which is located in this judicial district. 18 § 1391(b). 19 20 21 See 28 U.S.C. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any 22 case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 23 or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915A(a). 25 claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail 26 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 27 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 § 1915A(b)(1), (2). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable Id. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 1 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2 1988). 3 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 4 allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 5 Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 6 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 7 under the color of state law. 8 (1988). 9 II. Factual Background According to the allegations in the complaint, in June 2008 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 11 Plaintiff was incarcerated at SVSP. On June 24, 2008, Plaintiff 12 and another inmate, both of whom are affiliated with the "Fresno 13 Bulldogs," were involved in an altercation with two white inmates. 14 As a result, Plaintiff was charged with a rules violation and 15 subsequently found guilty of battery on an inmate. Plaintiff maintains that during the course of the interaction 16 17 between the "Fresno Bulldogs" and the white inmates SVSP 18 correctional officers used excessive force when they shot 19 Plaintiff in the head with "gas launcher direct impact rounds," 20 resulting in a head injury that required surgery and caused 21 neurological damage and damage to Plaintiff's hearing, vision, 22 balance and memory. Plaintiff names as Defendants SVSP Correctional Sergeant M. 23 24 Kircher and SVSP Correctional Officers R. Loza, O. Ponce, Frank 25 Colburn and M. Herrera. 26 III. 27 28 Legal Claims The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the 2 1 Eighth Amendment. 2 (1993). 3 infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment 4 forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." 5 312, 319 (1986). 6 See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 "'After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive 7 force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial 8 inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to 9 maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); 11 Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21. 12 Here, Plaintiff has alleged facts which, when liberally 13 construed, show that on the date of the events at issue SVSP 14 correctional officers M. Herrera, R. Loza, O. Ponce and 15 correctional sergeant M. Kircher used and/or authorized the use of 16 excessive force against Plaintiff. 17 Additionally, Plaintiff has alleged facts which, when 18 liberally construed, show that SVSP correctional officer Frank 19 Colburn failed to provide a videotape of the events to his 20 supervisors, resulting in the violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth 21 Amendment right to have reliable information form the basis for 22 prison disciplinary actions. 23 704-05 (9th Cir. 1987). See Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, CONCLUSION 24 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 26 1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit 27 and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the 28 Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint and all 3 1 attachments thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to 2 SVSP Defendants M. Kircher, R. Loza, O. Ponce, Frank Colburn and 3 M. Herrera. 4 The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a copy of the 5 complaint and a copy of this Order to the State Attorney General's 6 Office in San Francisco. 7 copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 8 9 2. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 11 Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this 12 action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive 13 service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to 14 bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their 15 failure to sign and return the waiver form. 16 this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the 17 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 18 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file an 19 answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request 20 for waiver was sent. 21 would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) 22 Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot 23 of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of 24 the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. 25 service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before 26 Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due 27 sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was 28 sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, If service is waived, (This allows a longer time to respond than 4 If 1 2 whichever is later. 3. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with 3 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: a. 5 The following briefing No later than ninety (90) days from the date their 6 answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment 7 or other dispositive motion. 8 adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects 9 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The motion shall be supported by If Defendants are of the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, 11 they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary 12 judgment motion is due. 13 promptly served on Plaintiff. b. 14 All papers filed with the Court shall be Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion 15 shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later 16 than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is 17 filed. 18 should be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment 19 motion: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice 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 5 1 2 3 4 5 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. 6 See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 7 banc). 8 Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 9 Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 (party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence 11 showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element 12 of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the 13 burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 prepared to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files his opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. evidence may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn declaration. c. 25 26 27 28 Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than thirty (30) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed. d. 23 24 Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint. 21 22 Such 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. 4. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison. 6 1 5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be 2 served on Defendants, or Defendants' counsel once counsel has been 3 designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants 4 or Defendants' counsel. 5 6. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. 6 Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address 7 and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. 8 9 7. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the 11 deadline sought to be extended. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 10/7/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 LEO ALEJANDREZ, Case Number: CV11-02381 CW 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. M KIRCHER et al, Defendant. 11 12 13 14 15 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on October 7, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Leo Alejandrez P-20280 4A-2L-32 CSP - Corcoran P.O. Box 3476 Corcoran, CA 93212 Dated: October 7, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 23 24 25 26 27 28 8

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?