Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05238/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page

numbers at the tops of the documents.

15-cv-5238 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

GARY E. BOLTON, SR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

MS. KAREN, Staff Member, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. 15-cv-5238 LB

ORDER OF SERVICE

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 9]

INTRODUCTION

Gary E. Bolton, currently a pretrial detainee in custody at Napa State Hospital, filed this pro se

prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Bolton has consented to proceed before a

magistrate judge. (ECF No. 6.)1

 This action is now before the court for review of Mr. Bolton’s

amended complaint. This order finds that Mr. Bolton has pled a cognizable § 1983 claim for a due

process violation, and directs the U.S. Marshal to serve process on the defendant. 

STATEMENT

In the present action, Mr. Bolton filed a complaint, and later an amended complaint. Although

an amended complaint normally supersedes the earlier pleading, both documents must be considered

to understand Mr. Bolton's allegations. The court therefore construes the complaint, as amended by

Case 3:15-cv-05238-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 5
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

15-cv-5238 LB

ORDER 2

the amended complaint, to be the operative pleading.

Mr. Bolton alleged in his amended complaint that the defendant, Ms. Karen, improperly gave

him three injections on October 18, 2015 at Napa State Hospital. As a result of the “bad

medications,” he allegedly now has a painful “bubble” on the lower portion of his stomach. (ECF

No. 9 at 4.) Ms. Karen is a psychiatric technician at Napa State Hospital. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) In his

original complaint, Mr. Bolton provided some details about the incident, alleging that he was

making soup because he was hungry, Ms. Karen told him not to, Mr. Bolton responded by telling a

male staff member to call the police because Ms. Karen had threatened him before, and then Ms.

Karen called Dr. Pathan and said that the doctor ordered three injections. (Id. at 3.) Mr. Bolton

further alleged that Ms. Karen angrily gave him the injections and, after doing so, stated that he had

threatened her. (Id.) The medications Mr. Bolton allegedly received by injection on October 18

were lorazepam, haloperidol (i.e., Haldol), and benztropine mesylate. (Id.; ECF No. 9 at 3.)

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 dismiss any claims

which 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. at § 1915A(b). 

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 violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

To force antipsychotic drugs on a prisoner or on a detainee awaiting trial is impermissible under

the federal constitution, “absent a finding of overriding justification and a determination of medical

appropriateness.” Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135 (1992); see Washington v. Harper, 494

U.S. 210, 229-30 (1990). In the context of Harper and Riggins, such an invasion of the human

person can only be justified by a determination by a neutral factfinder that the antipsychotic drugs

are medically appropriate and that the circumstances justify their application. See Kulas v. Valdez,

Case 3:15-cv-05238-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 5
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

15-cv-5238 LB

ORDER 3

159 F.3d 453, 455-56 (9th Cir. 1998); id. at 456 (procedural safeguards provided for in Harper may

not apply in an emergency, but no such emergency was shown where inmate was merely loud and

uncooperative). Liberally construed, Mr. Bolton's allegations that Ms. Karen involuntarily

medicated him on October 18, 2015 state a cognizable claim under § 1983 against Ms. Karen for a

due process violation. 

CONCLUSION

1. Liberally construed, the complaint, as amended by the amended complaint, states a

cognizable § 1983 claim against Ms. Karen for violating Mr. Bolton’s right to due process. All

other defendants and claims are dismissed. 

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and amended complaint, a copy of all the

documents in the case file, and a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge

jurisdiction” form upon the following defendant: Psychiatric technician Ms. Karen at Napa State

Hospital.

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for dispositive

motions is set:

a. No later than March 25, 2016, the defendant must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If the defendant is of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, the defendant must so inform the Court prior to the date

the motion is due. If the defendant files a motion for summary judgment, the defendant must

provide to the plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time she

files such a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). If the motion is based

on nonexhaustion of administrative remedies, the defendant must comply with the notice and

procedural requirements in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).

 b. The plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion must

be filed with the court and served upon the defendant no later than April 22, 2016. The plaintiff

must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this order

as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

Case 3:15-cv-05238-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 5
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

15-cv-5238 LB

ORDER 5

c. If the defendant wishes to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and served

no later than May 6, 2016.

4. The plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for

motions for summary judgment:

The defendants [may make] 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 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). If a defendant files a motion for summary

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, he or she is seeking to have the case

dismissed. A plaintiff faced with such a motion can oppose it using the same methods as described

above for other summary judgment motions. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if a

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the case will

be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

5. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's counsel

by mailing a true copy of the document to the defendant's counsel. The court may disregard any

document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's counsel

has been designated, the plaintiff may serve a document by mailing a true copy of the document

directly to the defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be

mailed to counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

6. 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 is required before the

parties may conduct discovery.

Case 3:15-cv-05238-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 4 of 5
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

15-cv-5238 LB

ORDER 6

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

7. The plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. The plaintiff must promptly keep the

court 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every pending

case every time he is moved to a new facility or is released from custody.

8. The plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case

on any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2016 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05238-LB Document 10 Filed 01/19/16 Page 5 of 5