Diaz v. Stevenson et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants Lt. P. Sullivan, Lt. J. Stevenson, Lt. R. A. Kessler, and Warden R. Binkele at the Salinas Valley State Prison (P.O. Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960-1020). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. The Clerk shall terminate Defendant P. Stevenson from this action as Plaintiff makes no allegations against this individual. Dispositive Motion due by 6/6/2014. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/4/2014. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ENRIQUE DIAZ,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

J. STEVENSON, et al.,
15

Defendants.
16

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

No. C 13-04575 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO
CLERK

17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed the

18
19

instant civil rights action in pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against SVSP

20

prison officials. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

21

granted in a separate order.

22

DISCUSSION

23
24
25

A.

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

26

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

27

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must

28

identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious,
Order of Service
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\04575Diaz_svc.wpd

1

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

2

defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

3

pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

4

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

B.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant P. Sullivan “falsified/fabricated disciplinary

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff’s Claims

charges” against Plaintiff for making threats on June 26, 2011, and issued him a

12

Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) based thereon. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that

13

Defendant J. Stevenson found him guilty of the false charge, and that Defendants R.

14

A. Kessler and Warden Binkele agreed with the outcome. (Id. at 4-A.) When

15

Plaintiff appealed the matter, he claims that the SVSP appeals coordinator dismissed

16

the RVR after finding that Plaintiff was “improperly charged” and that “all

17

administrative safeguards and due process rights were not upheld.” (Id.) Plaintiff

18

seeks compensatory damages for the violation of his due process rights which

19

resulted in his placement in segregation and the loss of privileges. (Id. at 3.)

20

Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a cognizable due process claim, see Wolff v.

21

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974), which, if successful, may entitle him to at

22

least nominal damages. See Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 481 n.5 (9th

23

Cir. 1991) (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-67 (1978); Vanelli v.

24

Reynolds School Dist. No. 7, 667 F.2d 773, 781 (9th Cir. 1982)).

25

CONCLUSION

26
27

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

28

1.

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

Order of Service
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\04575Diaz_svc.wpd

2

1

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

2

copy of the complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon

3

Defendants Lt. P. Sullivan, Lt. J. Stevenson, Lt. R. A. Kessler, and Warden R.

4

Binkele at the Salinas Valley State Prison (P.O. Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960-

5

1020). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

6
7
8

The Clerk shall terminate Defendant P. Stevenson from this action as Plaintiff
makes no allegations against this individual.1
2.

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

summons and the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified

11
For the Northern District of California

Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the

10

United States District Court

9

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

12

summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such service unless

13

good cause shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is

14

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that

15

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

16

required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the day on which

17

the request for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be

18

required if formal service of summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read

19

the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that more completely describes

20

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

21

is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before Defendants have been

22

personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which

23

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

24

filed, whichever is later.

25

3.

No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, Defendants

26
27
28

1

“P. Stevenson” appears to have been typed in error by Plaintiff in the
heading on page 1 of his Complaint, as no such name is listed as a defendant under
“Parties” on the following page.
Order of Service
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\04575Diaz_svc.wpd

3

1

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to

2

the claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above.
a.

3

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

4

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42

5

U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion

6

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

7

Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). The Ninth Circuit has held that

8

Plaintiff must be provided with the appropriate warning and notice under

9

Wyatt concurrently with Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Woods v. Carey,
Nos. 09-15548 & 09-16113, slip op. 7871, 7874 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012).
b.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by

12

adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the

13

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment

14

cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If

15

any Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

16

judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment

17

motion is due.
4.

18

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

19

Court and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date

20

Defendants’ motion is filed.
a.

21

In the event Defendants file a motion for summary

22

judgment, the Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently

23

provided the appropriate warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963

24

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods, Nos. 09-15548 & 09-16113, slip op. at

25

7874.

26

Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party

28

opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable
Order of Service
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\04575Diaz_svc.wpd

4

1

issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned

2

that failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may

3

be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and granting of

4

judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54

5

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994).

6
7
8
9

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

after Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
6.

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.
7.

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

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

5.

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

12

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

13

8.

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

9.

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

17

keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s

18

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action

19

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

20
21

10.

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

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

22
23

DATED:

4/4/2014

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
Order of Service
P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.13\04575Diaz_svc.wpd

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE DIAZ,

Case Number: CV13-04575 EJD

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
J. STEVENSON, 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.
4/7/2014
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.

Enrique Diaz K-70268
Salinas Valley State Prison
A4-122
P.O. Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960
Dated:

4/7/2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/ By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk