Thao v. California Prison Industry Authority et al
Filing
9
ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/22/16. (Certificate of Service Attached) (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016) Modified on 4/22/2016 (napS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
NOU THAO,
7
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER OF SERVICE
v.
9
CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY
AUTHORITY, et al.,
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-01098-PJH
Defendants.
12
13
14
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
15
16
17
DISCUSSION
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
2
factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment]
3
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
4
elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
5
raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
6
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state
7
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme
8
Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal
9
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
10
allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
12
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
13
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
14
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
15
violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
16
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
17 II.
LEGAL CLAIMS
18
Plaintiff states that he was exposed to lead paint and asbestos while working in a
19
prison facility.
20
Deliberate indifference to an inmate's health or safety violates the Eighth
21
Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A prison official violates the
22
Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is,
23
objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent
24
to the inmate’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
25
Under the deliberate indifference standard, the prison official must not only "be aware of
26
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
27
exists," but "must also draw the inference." Id. at 837.
28
2
1
Plaintiff states that in May and early June 2012 he was required to clean and work
2
in an area containing lead paint and asbestos. He was not given proper protective
3
clothing and the wrong type of mask. While he was provided a shower he was not given
4
fresh clothing and had to wear the same clothing that was exposed to the lead paint and
5
asbestos. Plaintiff does not describe any health effects but states prison officials will not
6
have him tested and he continues to be exposed to asbestos. Plaintiff seeks money
7
damages and injunctive relief. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s claims for exposure to lead
8
paint and asbestos and failure to have him tested are sufficient to proceed.
CONCLUSION
9
10
1. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this
12
order on the following defendants, who apparently work in the Prison Industries Section
13
of San Quentin State Prison (CAL-PIA): Joe Dobie, Gary Loredo, Brad Smith, Jeremy
14
Young, and Philip Early.
15
16
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
17
motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported
18
by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of
19
Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports
20
stemming from the events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be
21
resolved by summary judgment, she shall so inform the court prior to the date her
22
summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served
23
on the plaintiff.
24
b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve,
25
on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154
26
F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120
27
n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand
28
and Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to
3
1
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
2
3
the court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion
4
was served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE --
5
WARNING," which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-
6
954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir.
7
1988).
8
9
If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),
plaintiff should take note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(EXHAUSTION)," which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d
12
1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).
13
14
15
16
17
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
18
defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the
19
document to defendants or defendants' counsel.
20
4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
21
Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is
22
required before the parties may conduct discovery.
23
5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court
24
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
25
“Notice of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the court's orders in a timely
26
27
28
4
1
2
fas
shion. Failu to do so may resul in the dism
ure
o
lt
missal of th action fo failure to prosecute
his
or
3
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr
e
rocedure 41
1(b).
4
5
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: April 22, 2016
2
6
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
7
8
9
ANDOAK\Data\Users\PJHALL\_p
psp\2016\2016_0
01098_Thao_v_C
California_Prison
n_Industry_Autho
ority_(PSP)\16-cv
v-01098-PJH\\CA
serv
ve.docx
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
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
DISTRICT C
COURT
UNITED STATES D
3
NORTHER DISTRIC OF CAL
N
RN
CT
LIFORNIA
4
5
NOU THAO,
,
Case No. 16-cv-010
098-PJH
Plaintiff,
6
v.
CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY
C
A
Y
AUTHORITY et al.,
Y,
Defendants.
I, the undersigned hereby ce
u
d,
ertify that I am an emp
ployee in th Office of the Clerk,
he
f
S.
C
hern Distric of Californ
ct
nia.
U.S District Court, North
12
13
14
15
16
That on April 22, 2016, I SER
2
RVED a tru and corre copy(ies) of the att
ue
ect
tached, by
pla
acing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addres
c
ope
ssed to the person(s) h
hereinafter
list
ted, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing sa copy(ies into an
d
y
aid
s)
inte
er-office de
elivery receptacle locat in the C
ted
Clerk's office.
17
18
19
ou
I
No Thao ID: Prisoner Id J-27560
Sa Quentin State Priso
an
S
on
Sa Quentin, CA 94974
an
20
21
Da
ated: April 22, 2016
2
22
23
24
Susan Y. So
oong
C
Clerk, United States Dis
d
strict Court
25
26
27
By
y:________
_________
_________
Nichole Peric Deputy C
c,
Clerk to the
e
Honorable P
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
N
28
7
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?