Gooden v. Baptista et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 3 Motion appointment of counsel; denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 2 Motion appointment of counsel (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

DAVID GOODEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14
15

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER W.
BAPTISTA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 13-0352 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE;
DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO
FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION
OR NOTICE REGARDING
SUCH MOTION; ADDRESSING
PENDING MOTIONS

17
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated
19
below, the Court orders service upon the named Defendants.
20
DISCUSSION
21
A.

Standard of Review

22
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner
23
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See
24
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss
25
any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
26
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.
27
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
28
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion; Addressing
Pending Motions
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.13\Gooden352srv.wpd

1

Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

2

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

3

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

4

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.

5

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

6

B.

Legal Claims

7

In the complaint, Plaintiff states that he is a mentally ill patient housed at Pelican Bay

8

State Prison (“PBSP”) Psychiatric Security Unit. On July 9, 2012, Plaintiff was suicidal, and

9

told Defendants Baptista and Garza of his condition. Defendants Baptista and Garza secured

10

Plaintiff in handcuffs and leg shackles. Thereafter, Defendants Baptista, Garza, and Mart beat

11

Plaintiff, resulting in the transportation of Plaintiff to an outside hospital for treatment. Liberally

12

construed, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim of excessive force.

13

Plaintiff also states that before being transported for treatment, Plaintiff was forced to

14

wear a “spit mask.” A “spit mask” is an elastic, netted mask placed over the mouth, and is used

15

as a safety precaution by prison staff for inmates who have a history of spitting on people.

16

Plaintiff alleges that he had no history of spitting, and prison staff placed the “spit mask” on him

17

in an attempt to hide the injuries to Plaintiff’s face. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise

18

Eighth Amendment claims with respect to the “spit mask,” they are not cognizable because he

19

merely asserts that his rights were violated by “prison staff” without identifying any specific

20

individuals. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that a plaintiff

21

must show that an individual defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

22

protected right). If Plaintiff wishes to raise such a claim against specific individuals, he may

23

move to amend his complaint within thirty days.

24

C.

25

Pending motions
Plaintiff’s motions for an appointment of counsel are DENIED for want of exceptional

26

circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lassiter v.

27

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to counsel in a

28
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion; Addressing
Pending Motions
2
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.13\Gooden352srv.wpd

1

civil case). The issues in this case are not particularly complex, and Plaintiff has thus far been

2

able to adequately present his claims. This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte

3

appointment of counsel at a future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such

4

appointment.

5
6

Plaintiff’s motion for a possible early settlement is DENIED without prejudice at this
time.

7
8
9
10

CONCLUSION
1.

Plaintiff’s motions for an appointment of counsel are DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 2, 4.)

Plaintiff’s motion for possible early settlement is DENIED. (Doc. No. 3.)
2.

The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of

11

Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint

12

and all attachments thereto (docket no. 1), and a copy of this Order to Correctional Officers W.

13

Baptista, C. Mart, and E. Garza at PBSP.

14

The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and a copy of this

15

Order to the California Attorney General’s Office. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of

16

this Order to Plaintiff.

17

3.

Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

18

requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint.

19

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on

20

behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear

21

the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver

22

form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date

23

that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required

24

to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver

25

was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of

26

summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the bottom of the

27

waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of

28
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion; Addressing
Pending Motions
3
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.13\Gooden352srv.wpd

1

service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before

2

Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date

3

on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is

4

filed, whichever is later.

5

4.

No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, Defendants shall file a

6

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the cognizable claims

7

in the complaint.

8

a.

9

If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff

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

10

Defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315

11

F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003).

12

b.

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual

13

documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

14

Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

15

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If Defendants are of the opinion

16

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court

17

prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.

18

5.

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

19

served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ motion is

20

filed. Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

21

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must

22

come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of

23

his claim).

24
25
26
27

6.

Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
7.

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.

28
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion; Addressing
Pending Motions
4
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.13\Gooden352srv.wpd

1

8.

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

2

or Defendants’ counsel, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’

3

counsel.

4
5
6

9.

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

No further Court order is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
10.

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

7

and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

4/11/13
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion; Addressing
Pending Motions
5
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.13\Gooden352srv.wpd