Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04643/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04643-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON LEE MEYERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY PRISON HEALTH

SERVICES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-09-4643 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff Leon Lee Meyers, an inmate currently housed at

the Alameda County Jail, Santa Rita Facility, in Dublin, California,

has filed an amended pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that two medical officials at that facility were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff

seeks damages. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

Case 3:09-cv-04643-TEH Document 10 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 6
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

1 Plaintiff is housed in the Alameda County Jail; it remains

unclear from his pleading whether or not he is a pretrial detainee.

Assuming Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, his medical claim arises

under the Due Process Clause, but the Eighth Amendment still serves

as a benchmark for evaluating the claim. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74

F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (Eighth Amendment guarantees provide

minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). 

2

officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se

litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates

the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment.1 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A

“serious medical need” exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s

condition could result in further significant injury or the

“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974

F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104),

overruled in part on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A prison

Case 3:09-cv-04643-TEH Document 10 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 6
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 3

official is “deliberately indifferent” if he knows that a prisoner

faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by

failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations appear to

state a cognizable § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs, and Defendants Adams and Bowers will be

served. 

Named Defendant Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern is

hereby DISMISSED because he is named as a defendant only under the

theory of respondeat superior, which is insufficient to establish

liability. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)

(there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e., there

is no liability simply because one is responsible for the actions or

omissions of another). 

II

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 

1. Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern is hereby

DISMISSED as a Defendant in the instant action. 

2. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the

Amended Complaint (Doc. #9) in this matter, all attachments thereto,

and copies of this Order on Alameda County Santa Rita Jail Dentist

Adams and Alameda County Santa Rita Jail L.V.N. Lynn C. Bowers. The

Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff. 

Case 3:09-cv-04643-TEH Document 10 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 6
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 4

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the

Court orders as follows:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of

this Order, Defendants shall file a Motion for Summary Judgment or

other dispositive motion. A Motion for Summary Judgment shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all

respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as

exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events

at issue. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall

so inform the Court prior to the date their motion is due. All

papers filed with the Court shall be served promptly on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s Opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later

than thirty (30) days after Defendants serve Plaintiff with the

motion. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that 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 judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or

Case 3:09-cv-04643-TEH Document 10 Filed 01/14/10 Page 4 of 6
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 5

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 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App

A). 

Plaintiff also is advised that a Motion to Dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without prejudice. 

You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in

order to dispute any “factual record” presented by the Defendants in

their Motion to Dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14

(9th Cir. 2003).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within

fifteen (15) days of the date on which Plaintiff serves them with

the opposition. 

 e. 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. 

4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before

Case 3:09-cv-04643-TEH Document 10 Filed 01/14/10 Page 5 of 6
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 6

the parties may conduct discovery.

5. All communications by 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.

6. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this

case. Plaintiff must keep the Court and all parties informed of any

change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 01/13/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.09\Meyers-09-4643-order of service.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04643-TEH Document 10 Filed 01/14/10 Page 6 of 6