Thomas v. Chappall et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/24/15. (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ATTACHED)(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DEAN C. THOMAS,

7

Case No. 15-cv-02541-PJH

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF SERVICE

9
KEVIN CHAPPALL, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

13

1983. He has paid the filing fee.

14

DISCUSSION

15
16
17

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

18

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

20

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

21

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

22

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

23

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

25

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

26

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

27

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)

28

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed

1

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment]

2

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

3

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

4

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

5

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state

6

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme

7

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal

8

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

9

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

12
13

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

14

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

15

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16 II.

LEGAL CLAIMS

17

Plaintiff states that he has been denied proper medical accommodations.

18

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

19

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

20

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

21

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en

22

banc). A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two

23

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the

24

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059.

25

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

26

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id.

27

The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and

28

worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly
2

1

affects an individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are

2

examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at

3

1059-60.

4

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable

6

steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must

7

not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial

8

risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official

9

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the

10

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and

12

prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”

13

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

14

Plaintiff alleges that he has a history of chronic spinal and joint pain and he has

15

had lumbar surgery that was unsuccessful. An outside doctor recommended that plaintiff

16

have a lower bunk to avoid climbing to an upper bunk which could lead to injury. Plaintiff

17

had been provided a lower bunk but it was discontinued by defendants. Plaintiff seeks

18

reinstatement of the lower bunk. This claim is sufficient to proceed.

19
20

CONCLUSION
1. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,

21

without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this

22

order on the following defendants: Warden Kevin Chappall, Chief Medical Officer E.

23

Tootell, and Dr. Reyes at San Quentin State Prison.

24
25

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:
a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a

26

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported

27

by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

28

Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports
3

1

stemming from the events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be

2

resolved by summary judgment, she shall so inform the court prior to the date her

3

summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served

4

on the plaintiff.

5

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve,

6

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154

7

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120

8

n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand

9

and Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to

10

dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement).
c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

the court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion

13

was served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE --

14

WARNING," which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

15

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir.

16

1988).

17

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to

18

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

19

plaintiff should take note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING

20

(EXHAUSTION)," which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

21

1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

22
23
24
25
26

d. If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall do so no later than
fifteen days after the opposition is served upon her.
e. 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.
3. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendant, or

27

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

28

document to defendants or defendants' counsel.
4

1

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

2

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is

3

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

4

5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

5

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

6

“Notice of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the court's orders in a timely

7

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

8

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: September 24, 2015

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15

\\CANDOAK\Data\Users\PJHALL\_psp\2015\2015_02541_Thomas_v_Chappall_(PSP)\15-cv-02541-PJH-_serve.docx

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1
2

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case

3

dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

5

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

6

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue

7

of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the

8

result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as

9

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set

12

out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated

13

documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s

14

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for

15

trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if

16

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will

17

be dismissed and there will be no trial.

18
19
20
21

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)
If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are
seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.
You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show

22

that you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of

23

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents,

24

that is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and

25
why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or
26
27
28

depositions. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it
is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.
6

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

DEAN C. THOMAS,

Case No. 15-cv-02541-PJH

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8

KEVIN CHAPPALL, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

12
13
14
15
16

That on September 24, 2015, 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.

17
18
19

Dean C. Thomas
T-84535
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94974

20
21

Dated: September 24, 2015

22
23
24
25
26

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
By:________________________
Nichole Peric, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

27
28
7