Chavez-Alvarez v. San Jose Police Department et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 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 amended complaint, (Docket No. 7), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendant Officer Monzon (Badge # 4147) at the San Jose Police Department(201 W. Mission Street, San Jose, CA 95110). The C lerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. All other Defendants are DISMISSED from this action. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 7/5/2017. Responses due by 8/2/2017. Replies due by 8/16/2017. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/5/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RAFAEL CHAVEZ-ALVAREZ,
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

SAN JOSE POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.

15

Case No. 16-02796 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO
CLERK

16
17

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action

18
19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the San Jose Police Department (“SJPD”) and its

20

officers. After an initial review, the Court found the complaint was attempting to state an

21

excessive force claim, (Docket No. 6 at 2.) However, Plaintiff failed to specify how each

22

of the eight defendants caused his injuries. (Id.) Plaintiff was given leave to file an

23

amended complaint to correct this deficiency. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has filed an amended

24

complaint. (Docket No. 7.)

25

DISCUSSION

26
27
28

A.

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

1

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

2

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

3

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim

4

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

5

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally

6

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 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

7
8

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

9

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

B.

12

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff claims that on February 9, 2014, he was shot multiple times by two or

13

more officers and repeatedly tasered during the course of his arrest, which amounted to

14

excessive force. (Am. Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff names Defendant Officer Monzon as one of

15

the officers who shot and struck him twice with bullets. (Id.) Liberally construed,

16

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to indicate that excessive force may have been used

17

during the course of his arrest which is a valid claim under § 1983. See Rutherford v. City

18

of Berkeley, 780 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds by Graham

19

v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

20

Plaintiff also names other officers of the San Jose Police Department, (Am. Compl.

21

at 2), but fails to explain how each of the officers acted during the course of his arrest to

22

establish a claim against them. As explained in the previous court order, without an

23

adequate description of the specific acts each individual defendant allegedly committed,

24

and how the alleged acts violated his constitutional rights, the Court cannot determine

25

whether Plaintiff has stated claims for relief against each named defendant. (Docket No. 6

26

at 3.) Accordingly, the other named officers shall be dismissed from this action without

27

prejudice until such time Plaintiff, through discovery, is able to establish their involvement

28

2

1

in the excessive force claim arising out of the February 9, 2014 arrest. He may do so by

2

filing a motion to add newly identified defendants, as they become known, along with a

3

supplemental complaint describing their unlawful actions. See Brass v. County of Los

4

Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195–98 (9th Cir. 2003).

5

CONCLUSION

6
7

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

8

1.

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

10

of the amended complaint, (Docket No. 7), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

upon Defendant Officer Monzon (Badge # 4147) at the San Jose Police Department

12

(201 W. Mission Street, San Jose, CA 95110). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this

13

Order to Plaintiff.

14

All other Defendants are DISMISSED from this action.

15

2.

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause shown for

20

their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will

21

proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that the waiver is filed, except that

22

pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer

23

before sixty (60) days from the day on which the request for waiver was sent. (This

24

allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is

25

necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver

26

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

27

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

28

3

1

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

2

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

3

the waiver form is filed, whichever is later.

4

3.

No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date of this order, Defendants

5

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

6

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

7

Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

8

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

9

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor
qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the

12

Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
b.

13

In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the

14

Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate

15

warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See

16

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012).

17

4.

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

18

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

19

motion is filed.

20

Plaintiff is also 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

22

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

23

element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to

24

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to

25

the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See

26

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18

27

F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994).

28

4

1
2
3
4
5

5.

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

6

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

7

copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

8.

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

Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local
Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
9.

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15
16
17

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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

4/5/2017
Dated: _____________________

________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25

Order of Service
PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\02796Chavez-Alvarez_svc

26
27
28

5