Youngblood v. Medeiros et al

Filing 30

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of the amended complaint, (Docket No. 16), all attachments thereto, and a copy of t his order upon Defendants counsel. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 8/15/2017. Responses due by 9/12/2017. Replies due by 9/26/2017. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/16/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICO RAMON YOUNGBLOOD, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 15 MEDEIROS, et al., Defendants. Case No. 16-06493 EJD (PR) ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department 20 (“SCSD”). After an initial review, the Court found the complaint stated a cognizable claim 21 and ordered the matter served on Defendants; Plaintiff’s claim challenging the lawfulness 22 and validity of his current confinement was dismissed to filing in a habeas action. (Docket 23 No. 8.) After Defendants were served but before they filed an answer, Plaintiff filed an 24 amended complaint on February 9, 2017. (Docket No. 16.) On March 22, 2017, the Court 25 vacated the briefing schedule, stating that a new schedule would be set after a review of 26 the amended complaint. (Docket No. 23.) The matter was reassigned to this Court on 27 April 5, 2017, after a party declined magistrate jurisdiction. (Docket No. 25.) 28 The amended complaint is now before this Court for an initial review. DISCUSSION 1 2 A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 3 4 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 5 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 6 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 7 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 8 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 9 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 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 12 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 13 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 14 B. 15 Plaintiff’s Claims An amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 16 non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 17 Consequently, claims not included in an amended complaint are no longer claims and 18 defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 19 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). Accordingly, any claims from the original 20 complaint not included in the amended complaint are no longer part of this action. 21 Plaintiff claims that on April 6, 2016, he was arrested and placed directly into the 22 Sonoma County Jails Administrative Segregation Unit (“ad-seg”). (Am. Compl. at 4.) He 23 claims that on the same day, he wrote an inmate request form to mental health expressing 24 how “he had been off of his meds and that he was suffering severe anxiety, panic attacks, 25 and depression.” (Id.) Plaintiff wrote several follow-up requests from May 2016 through 26 September 2016, requesting removal from ad-seg and request for help with his mental 27 health issues. (Id. at 5-8.) Plaintiff also submitted grievances regarding these issues. (Id. 28 2 1 at 9.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants were “deliberately indifferent to his serious 2 medical/mental health needs which exposed [him] to unsafe conditions resulting in serious 3 irrep[a]rable harm.” (Id. at 13.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s claims are cognizable as a 4 violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. See Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 5 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 6 1982) (mental health care requirements analyzed as part of general health care 7 requirements). 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 1. The Court notes that the named Defendants in the amended complaint are the 12 same Defendants who have already been served in this action. Accordingly, the Clerk of 13 the Court shall mail a copy of the amended complaint, (Docket No. 16), all attachments 14 thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants’ counsel. The Clerk shall also mail a 15 copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 16 2. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 17 Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 18 respect to the claims in the amended complaint found to be cognizable above. 19 a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 20 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 22 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the 23 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 24 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 25 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the 26 Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate 27 warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See 28 3 1 Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 3. 2 Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 3 and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 4 motion is filed. Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 6 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment 7 must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential 8 element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to 9 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to 10 the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 12 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 4. 13 14 Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 5. 15 16 Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after 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. 6. 17 All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on 18 Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 19 copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 7. 20 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) or Local 22 Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 8. 23 It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 24 court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a 25 timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 26 prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 27 /// 28 4 1 2 3 4 9. 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. 5/16/2017 Dated: _____________________ ________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Service PRO-SE\EJD\CR.16\06493Youngblood_svc 26 27 28 5

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?