Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05308/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05308-0/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

MICHAEL ANGELO POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARLAIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05308-JSC 

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 

For the reasons discussed below, the United States Marshal is ordered to serve Defendants. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 at any 

time if the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. 

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

 

1

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 1.) 

Case 3:14-cv-05308-JST Document 5 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 4
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

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 

state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to 

provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 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).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants Dr. Marlais and Dr. Calderon, two dentists at the 

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, failed to properly treat his abscessed tooth in 

2012 and 2013, are sufficient, when liberally construed, to state a cognizable claim under Section 

1983 for the violation of his right under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual 

punishment. Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (dental care important 

medical need of inmates; deliberate indifference to such needs violate Eighth Amendment).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form and 

the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, the Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of the amended complaint with attachments thereto, and a 

copy of this order upon: Dr. R. Marlais and Dr. Calderon, staff dentists at Correctional Training 

Facility in Soledad, California. 

The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the amended complaint with all attachments 

and a copy of this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

2. Each Defendant shall complete and file their own Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent 

form within 28 days of the date they are served, or 91 days of the date this order is filed, 

Case 3:14-cv-05308-JST Document 5 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 4
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

whichever comes first. If all of the Defendants consent to a Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction, then: 

a. Defendants shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

b. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, Defendants shall file a motion for 

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion 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 

Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so 

inform the Court prior to the date his summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the 

Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.

c. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendants shall also serve, on a separate 

paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(en banc). 

d. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the Court and 

served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. Plaintiff must read 

the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. 

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 

409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

e. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is filed. 

f. 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. 

3. 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.

4. 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) is required before the parties 

may conduct discovery.

5. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

Case 3:14-cv-05308-JST Document 5 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 4
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

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also 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).

6. Requests for a reasonable extension of time will be considered if supported by a 

showing of good cause and filed prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05308-JST Document 5 Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 4