Thomas v. Ellis

Filing 5

ORDER OF SERVICE AND PARTIAL DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/8/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

Case No.: C 12-5563 CW (PR)

EDWARD THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

5

ORDER OF SERVICE AND PARTIAL
DISMISSAL

v.

6
7

GERALD ELLIS, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
INTRODUCTION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley

11
12

State Prison (SVSP), has filed a pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his

13
constitutional rights by prison officials and medical staff at
14
15

SVSP.

His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been

granted.

16
17
18

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

19

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

20

or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

21

§ 1915A(a).

22

claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail

23

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

24

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

25

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

26

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

27

1988).

28

28 U.S.C.

In its review, the court must identify any cognizable

Id.

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

1

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

2

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

3

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

4

under the color of state law.

5

(1988).

6

II.

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

Plaintiff’s Claims

7

A.

8

Plaintiff alleges that he is partially paralyzed and in

9

Medical Claims

chronic pain as the result of gunshot injuries he suffered in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1996.

11

SVSP have refused to continue his methadone prescription as

12

previously prescribed for pain relief since November 2009.

13

result, Plaintiff alleges that he is in constant and severe pain

14

because of his injuries and is unable to sleep.

15

alleges that, on September 9, 2010, Dr. Bright cancelled all of

16

his prescriptions for assistive medical devices to help him

17

ambulate and refused to renew medical chronos requiring that he be

18

transported using waist chains, housed in a lower bunk on a lower

19

tier, and allowed soft-sole shoes.

20

that his chronic pain has been exacerbated.

21

relief and damages.

22

He alleges that, since March 30, 2011, medical staff at

As a

He further

As a result, Plaintiff alleges
He seeks injunctive

When Plaintiff’s allegations are construed liberally, they

23

state cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate

24

indifference to his serious medical needs.

25

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059

26

(9th Cir. 1992).

See Estelle v. Gamble,

27

B.

Property Claim

28

Plaintiff alleges that SVSP correctional officers E. Mata and
2

1

Makela are responsible for the loss of his soft-sole shoes and

2

other items of personal property, which went missing between April

3

6 and 30, 2012, when his property was withheld from him and under

4

their control.

5

or confiscated.

6

He surmises that the items either were destroyed
He seeks replacement shoes and damages.

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for relief

7

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8

that is random and unauthorized his remedy lies with the State, as

9

neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property

When a prisoner suffers a property loss

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

states a due process claim under § 1983 under such circumstances.

11

See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (no claim where

12

state employee negligently lost prisoner’s hobby kit), overruled

13

in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-

14

31 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (no claim

15

for intentional destruction of inmate’s property).

16

availability of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy, for

17

example a state tort action, precludes relief under § 1983 because

18

it provides adequate procedural due process.

19

782 F.2d 825, 826 (9th Cir. 1986). California law provides an

20

adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.

21

Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing

22

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 810-895).1

23

The

King v. Massarweh,

Plaintiff claims his property was destroyed or confiscated as

24

the result of improper handling by prison staff.

25

fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under

Such allegations

26
1

27
28

Nor is a prisoner protected by the Fourth Amendment against
the seizure, destruction or conversion of his property. See
Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989).

3

1

§ 1983.

2

based on such allegations would be futile.

3

claim is DISMISSED with prejudice and all claims against

4

correctional officers E. Mata and Makela are DISMISSED from this

5

action.

Additionally, amendment of the complaint to state a claim

6

Accordingly, this

CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

8

1.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Plaintiff’s deprivation of property claim is DISMISSED

with prejudice and all claims against Defendants E. Mata and
Makela are DISMISSED from this action.
2.

Plaintiff states cognizable claims for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs.

13

The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and

14

Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver

15

of Service of Summons, a copy of the Complaint (Docket no. 1) and

16

all attachments thereto and a copy of this Order to SVSP

17

Defendants Gerald Ellis -- Chief Executive Officer at SVSP; M.

18

Sepulveda -- Chief Medical Officer at SVSP; T.W. Wy -- medical

19

doctor at SVSP; T.J. Carnes -- registered nurse at SVSP; B. Miller

20

-- registered nurse at SVSP; Darrin Bright -- doctor and ADA

21

coordinator at SVSP.

22

complaint and a copy of this Order to the State Attorney General’s

23

Office in San Francisco, and a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

24

3.

The Clerk shall also mail a copy of the

Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal

25

Rules of Civil Procedure require them to cooperate in saving

26

unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint.

27

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this

28

action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive
4

1

service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to

2

bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their

3

failure to sign and return the waiver forms.

4

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served

5

on the date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule

6

12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file an

7

answer before sixty days from the date on which the request for

8

waiver was sent.

9

be required if formal service of summons is necessary.)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If service is

(This allows a longer time to respond than would

Defendants are advised to read the statement set forth at the

11

foot of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties

12

of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons.

13

If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but

14

before Defendants have been personally served, the answer shall be

15

due sixty days from the date on which the request for waiver was

16

sent or twenty days from the date the waiver form is filed,

17

whichever is later.

18

4.

Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with

19

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20

schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

21

a.

The following briefing

No later than thirty days from the date their

22

answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment

23

or other dispositive motion.

24

summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual

25

documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

26

Civil Procedure 56.

27
28

If Defendants file a motion for

If Defendants are of the opinion that this

case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform
the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

5

1

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on

2

Plaintiff.

3

At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment or

4

other dispositive motion, Defendants shall comply with the Ninth

5

Circuit’s decisions in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.

6

2012), and Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012), and

7

provide Plaintiff with notice of what is required of him to oppose

8

a summary judgment motion or a motion to dismiss for failure to

9

exhaust administrative remedies.
b.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary

judgment or other dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court
and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight days after the
date on which Defendants’ motion is filed.

13
Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read
14
the notice that will be provided to him by Defendants when the
15
motion is filed, and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
16
17

Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party
opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing

18

triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his

19

claim).

20

of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared to

21

produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files his

22

opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

23

may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to

24

the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn

25

declaration.

26

simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

27
28

Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the burden

c.

Such evidence

Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than

fourteen days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
6

1

d.

2

the reply brief is due.

3

unless the Court so orders at a later date.

4

5.

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

5

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6

to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose

7

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

8
9

6.

Leave of the Court pursuant

All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be

served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants

11

or Defendants’ counsel.

12

7.

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case.

13

He must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must

14

comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.

15

8.

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

16

extensions will be granted.

17

must be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the deadline

18

sought to be extended.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Any motion for an extension of time

Dated: 4/8/2013
________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7