Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04089/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04089-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYNNARD A. SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEVEN G. DAVIS,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4089 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Lynnard Smith (“Plaintiff”), formerly incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility in Soledad, California, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 17, 2007, this Court dismissed the complaint with leave to

amend. On December 31, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging

retaliation by Defendants Davis and Benedetti. This order serves the complaint. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff raises claims of retaliation against Defendant for filing a disciplinary

complaint against him after Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance against Davis. He

seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. 

ANALYSIS

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or 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

Case 3:07-cv-04089-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 5
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 2

defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed, however. 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 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).

II Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Davis retaliated against him by falsely accusing

him of wrongdoing because Plaintiff had filed an administrative complaint against him.

In order to state a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, a prisoner

must show that the type of activity he was engaged in was constitutionally protected, that

the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the alleged retaliatory

action, and that the retaliatory action advanced no legitimate penological interest. Hines

v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267-68 (9th Cir. 1997). He also must allege that the defendants'

actions caused him some injury. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Prisoners may not be retaliated against for exercising their right of access to the courts,

which extends to the use of established prison grievance procedures. Sprouse v. Babcock,

870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989); Hines v. Gomez, 853 F. Supp. 329, 331-32 (N.D. Cal.

1994). Liberally construed, Plaintiff allegations present a cognizable claim for

retaliation against Davis.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim may proceed. The Clerk of the Court shall issue

summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy

of the complaint and all attachments thereto with all attachments thereto, and a copy of

this order upon: Correctional Officer Steven G. Davis, of the Correctional Training

Case 3:07-cv-04089-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Facility in Soledad, California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on

Plaintiff.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendants

shall either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice

to the Court that they are of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by dispositive

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. All papers filed with the

Court shall be promptly served on the Plaintiff.

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

Court and served on Defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants’

motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to

Plaintiff:

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 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

defendant's 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.

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

Case 3:07-cv-04089-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 5
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

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). 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff's opposition is filed. 

d. 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. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be

granted. However, the party making the motion for an extension of time is not relieved

from his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having

made a motion for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still meet the

deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is

received. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than five days prior

to the deadline sought to be extended.

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 informed of any change of address by filing a separate document entitled “Notice

of 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2008

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04089-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 4 of 5
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

LYNNARD A. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEVEN G. DAVIS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04089 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 25, 2008, 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.

Lynnard A. Smith

D89280

CSP Solano

P.O. Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696

Dated: January 25, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04089-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 5