Mitchell v. Grounds et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants as follows: Warden Randy Grounds, Dr. D. Bright, and Dr. M. Sepulveda at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad (P.O. Box 686, Soledad, CA 93960-0686); and C. Hammond and D. Foston at the Inmate Appeals Branch, (CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283-0001). Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/28/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
RANDY GROUNDS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________ )
GREGORY MITCHELL,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 11-03012 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE MOTION TO
DISMISS OR NOTICE REGARDING
SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO
CLERK

17

Plaintiff, a California inmate at the Correctional Training Facility (”CTF”) in

18
19

Soledad, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §

20

794(a), as subsumed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §

21

12132, challenging prison officials’ treatment of him as a disabled person. Plaintiff’s

22

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate order. The

23

Court will now conduct its initial review of the complaint.

24

DISCUSSION

25
26

A.

Standard of Review

27

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

28

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
Order of Service
03012Mitchell_svc.wpd

1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).
Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and codified in 29

5
6

U.S.C. § 794(a) (“the Act”), provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a

7

disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected

8

to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

9

The Act is applicable to state prisons receiving federal financial assistance. See

10

Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 1997); Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d

11

559, 562 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2001)

12

(California Board of Prison Terms and individuals with supervisory capacity over the

13

Board were proper defendants in ADA/Rehabilitation Act suit).
The elements of a claim under the Act are that: (1) the plaintiff is a handicapped

14
15

person under the Act; (2) he is otherwise qualified; (3) the relevant program receives

16

federal financial assistance; and (4) the defendants impermissibly discriminated against

17

him on the basis of the handicap See Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 562-63 (9th Cir.

18

1988); cf. Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 589-90 (1999) (essentially same showing

19

required to state cause of action under Title II of ADA).

20

B.

Plaintiff’s Claims

21

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Randy Grounds, Dr. D. Bright, and Dr. M.

22

Sepulveda violated his rights under the Act by denying his request for “first/second tier

23

lower bunk housing” accommodations. (Compl. at 11.) Plaintiff claims that he became

24

disabled after he was shot with a “357 gun” that shattered his left femur and required the

25

leg be reconstructed with metal plates and screws. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants

26

unlawfully denied his request when they determined that Plaintiff did not qualify under

27

the ADA. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants C. Hammond and D. Foston,

28

Appeals Examiners at the Inmate Appeals Branch of the California Department of
Order of Service
03012Mitchell_svc.wpd

2

1

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), wrongfully denied his appeals on this matter.

2

(Id.) Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that their actions violated his Eighth Amendment right to

3

personal safety under the ADA. Based on the allegations in the complaint when liberally

4

construed, Plaintiff’s claims are cognizable under the Act.

5

CONCLUSION

6
7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

8

1.

The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States

9

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, all attachments

10

thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants as follows: Warden Randy Grounds,

11

Dr. D. Bright, and Dr. M. Sepulveda at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad

12

(P.O. Box 686, Soledad, CA 93960-0686); and C. Hammond and D. Foston at the

13

Inmate Appeals Branch, (CDCR, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283-0001).
2.

14

No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendants shall

15

file a motion, or notice that such motion is unwarranted, to dismiss on the grounds

16

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1997e(a), Defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to

18

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied Alameida v.

19

Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003).
3.

20
21

on Defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants’ motion is filed.
a.

22
23

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion shall be filed with the Court and served

In the event the Defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), Plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:1
The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground you
have not exhausted your administrative remedies. The motion will,

24
25
26
27
28

1

The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be given to pro
se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14.
Order of Service
03012Mitchell_svc.wpd

3

if granted, result in the dismissal of your case. When a party you are
suing makes a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and that
motion is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn
testimony) and/or documents, you may not simply rely on what your
complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in
declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or documents,
that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and
documents and show that you have in fact exhausted your claims. If
you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, the motion to
dismiss, if appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

1
2
3
4
5
6

4.

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

7

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
8

5.

The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.

9

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.
10

6.

All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on

11

Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true
12

copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.
13

7.

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

14

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or
15

Local Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
16

8.

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

17

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a
18

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
19

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
20

9.

Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be

21

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.
22
23

DATED:

October 28, 2011

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
Order of Service
03012Mitchell_svc.wpd

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MITCHELL,

Case Number: CV11-03012 EJD

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
RANDY GROUNDS, et al.,
Defendants.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
10/31/2011
That on
, 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.

Gregory Mitchell D44205
P. O. Box 689
Soledad, CA 93690
Dated:

10/31/2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk