Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04286/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04286-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTHONY TYRONE CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORIZON HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04286-WHO (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE;

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT 

MAGAT TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING 

SUCH MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff Anthony Campbell alleges medical staff at Santa Rita Jail failed to provide 

him with constitutionally adequate dental care. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights 

complaint containing these allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Having concluded that the complaint (Docket No. 1) states cognizable claims 

against Maria Magat, the Court directs defendant to file in response to the operative 

complaint a dispositive motion, or notice regarding such motion, on or before January 9, 

2017, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendant is to adhere 

to the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order. 

Case 3:16-cv-04286-WHO Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

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 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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. Legal Claims 

 Plaintiff Campbell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges defendants delayed 

proper dental care for four months, even though they knew of his toothache, a cracked 

tooth, and a possible cavity. When liberally construed, these allegations state claims under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and shall proceed. 

Case 3:16-cv-04286-WHO Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

 Campbell names as defendants Corizon Health; Maria Magat, medical director; the 

Alameda County Sheriff’s Department; and Dr. Barber, a dentist. Only the claims against 

Magat will proceed. It was she who denied his requests for treatment. Campbell fails to 

allege facts that plausibly show liability on the part of the other defendants. Accordingly, 

Corizon Health, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, and Dr. Barber, and the claims 

against them, are DISMISSED. 

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 operative complaint in this 

matter (Docket No. 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Maria Magat, 

Medical Director of the Santa Rita County Jail. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies 

of the operative complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

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

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

the complaint found to be cognizable above. 

 a. If defendant elects 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 a motion for summary judgment, as required by 

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

 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. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 

opinion 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. 

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

and served on defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendant’s 

Case 3:16-cv-04286-WHO Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

motion is filed. 

 4. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

 5. 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. All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on 

defendant, or defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 

copy of the document to defendant or defendant’s counsel. 

 7. 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. 

 8. 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 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). 

 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. 

 10. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be 

given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions 

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or 

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 

2012). Defendant shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they file and serve 

any motion for summary judgment: 

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 

Case 3:16-cv-04286-WHO Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 4 of 5
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

Northern District of California

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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 3, 2016

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-04286-WHO Document 9 Filed 10/03/16 Page 5 of 5