Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00599/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00599-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 10-0599 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 8/23/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MASALA MAJID JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREGORY J. AHERN, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 10-0599 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

This is a federal civil rights action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1983 in which it is alleged that defendants, officers and employees at the Alameda

County Sheriff’s Department, violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. The Court

now reviews the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

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

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

Case 3:10-cv-00599-RS Document 14 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 10-0599 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

2

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

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

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

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be

drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th

Cir. 1994). 

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

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

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). 

B. Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants, officers and employees of the Alameda County

Sheriff’s Department, violated his right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to

self-representation by restricting his access to the law library. Liberally construed, these

claims are cognizable in a federal civil rights action under § 1983.

Plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his right to privacy, especially as it relates to

attorney-client privilege, is DISMISSED without prejudice on grounds that it is unrelated to

his library access claims. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 18 & 20. If plaintiff wishes to pursue his

right to privacy claim, he must file a new federal action. 

Case 3:10-cv-00599-RS Document 14 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 10-0599 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

3

Plaintiff’s claim that defendants committed abuse of process is a state law claim. The

Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this claim, which is DISMISSED without

prejudice. If plaintiff seeks relief on this claim, he must file a state court action. 

MOTION

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to contact non-party witnesses (Docket No. 5) is DENIED

without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew such motion after defendants have filed a response to

this service order. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

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

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the following defendants at the Alameda

County Sheriff’s Department: Gregory J. Ahern, Robert Barnham, and T. Smith. The Clerk

shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order to the California Attorney

General’s Office.

3. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall file

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

amended complaint found to be cognizable above. 

a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

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

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

315 F.3d 1108, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810

(2003). 

b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

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

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 opinion

Case 3:10-cv-00599-RS Document 14 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 10-0599 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

4

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to

the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

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

served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ motion is

filed. 

a. In the event the defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:

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, 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.

b. In the event defendants file a motion for summary judgment, 

the Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to plaintiffs:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of

material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result

of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

Case 3:10-cv-00599-RS Document 14 Filed 08/23/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 10-0599 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

5

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided

in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents

and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your

own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. 

If summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants, your case will be dismissed and there

will be no trial. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff

is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward

with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). 

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary

judgment may be deemed to be a consent by plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and

granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) 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

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

of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

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

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

Case 3:10-cv-00599-RS Document 14 Filed 08/23/10 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 10-0599 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

6

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

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

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.

11. Plaintiff’s motion to contact non-party witnesses is DENIED without prejudice.

12. This order terminates Docket No. 5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 23, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00599-RS Document 14 Filed 08/23/10 Page 6 of 6