Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00509/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00509-2/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

Order of Partial Dismissal and Service

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Losoya0509_svc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LOSOYA,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEAN S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-00509 JW (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

AND OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE

REGARDING SUCH MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket No. 42)

On February 3, 2005, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at

Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in Crescent City, filed a pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various PBSP employees for violations of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failing

to plead sufficient facts against specific defendants to support each claim. Plaintiff’s

amended complaint, filed on February 22, 2008, is now before the Court for

preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

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

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 8
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and Service

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Losoya0509_svc.wpd 2

governmental entity. 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings

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 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).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In a lengthy eighty-four page complaint and even lengthier exhibit, plaintiff

alleges various acts by prison officials which violated his constitutional rights as

follows: 1) prison officials are unlawfully retaining plaintiff in the SHU based on

insufficient information and without periodic reviews; 2) prison officials are acting

with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs by not letting him

out of his cell to receive psychological and medical services and access to the

exercise yard; 3) plaintiff’s right to access to courts was violated when he was

denied an attorney visit for a parole board hearing and access to legal cell study for

six months; 4) prison officials violated plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment

by refusing to allow him to correspond with his brothers at other prisons; 5) prison

officials are denying plaintiff equal protection and subjecting him to racial

harassment; 6) plaintiff is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the

conditions in the SHU; and 7) defendants have been retaliating and harassing

plaintiff since 1995, when they placed plaintiff in the SHU. 

With respect to claim numbers 5 and 7, plaintiff offers nothing more than

conclusory allegations and fails to plead sufficient facts against specific defendants

to support these claims. Accordingly, claim numbers 5 and 7 are DISMISSED from

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 8
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and Service

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Losoya0509_svc.wpd 3

this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

 Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations in claim numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6

appear cognizable under § 1983. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claim numbers 5 and 7 above are DISMISSED from this 

action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b)(1),(2). 

2. Plaintiff names Defendant Does 1-50 in his complaint, but has not 

alleged any specific conduct on the part of these defendants and, as such, the

complaint fails to state a claim. Although the use of “John Doe” to identify a

defendant is not favored in the Ninth Circuit, see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,

642 (9th Cir. 1980); Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 406 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir.

1968), situations may arise where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be

known prior to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should

be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants,

unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover their identities or that the

complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642;

Velasquez v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 1986 ). Accordingly,

Defendant Does 1-50 are DISMISSED from this action. If through discovery

plaintiff is able to identify the unknown defendants, he may then motion the Court

for leave to amend to name the intended defendants and to issue summons upon

them. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642; Barsten v. Dep’t of the Interior, 896 F.2d 422,

423-24 (9th Cir. 1990). 

3. The clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States 

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 8
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and Service

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Losoya0509_svc.wpd 4

in this matter, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Warden

Kirkland, Sergeant Flowers, Sergeant Akin, and Second Watch Correctional

Officers from April to December 2004, including Hyde, Delaunay, George,

Strickhouser, Trotter, Smith, Knight, Pofhal, Moore, Kirby, Simmons, Green,

Owen, Romero, Estrella, Cortez, Navarro, Schiavone, Holt, Curtis, Cardenas,

Daniel, Bracht, Gensaw, Howe, Young, Winningham, Miligin, Testa, Keely,

Gelinas, Rios, Nelson, Wilcy, and Preston at Pelican Bay State Prison. The clerk

shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order to the California

Attorney General’s Office.

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

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to

the claims in the amended complaint found to be cognizable above. 

a. If defendants elect 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 an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion

pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied

Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). 

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. Defendants are 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. 

5. 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. 

a. In the event the defendants file an unenumerated motion to

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 4 of 8
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

 The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be

given to pro se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th

Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14.

Order of Partial Dismissal and Service

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Losoya0509_svc.wpd 5

dismiss under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:1

The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground

you have not exhausted your administrative remedies. The

motion will, if granted, result in the dismissal of your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly supported by

declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you

may not simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you

must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, or documents, that contradict the facts shown

in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that

you have in fact exhausted your claims. If you do not submit

your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

b. In the event defendants file a motion for summary judgment, 

the Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to plaintiffs:

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 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 in favor of

defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be no

trial.

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

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 5 of 8
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and Service

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Losoya0509_svc.wpd 6

forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential

element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by

plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against plaintiff

without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per

curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

7. 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. 

8. All communications by the 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.

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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 the deadline sought to be extended.

///

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 6 of 8
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and Service

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.05\Losoya0509_svc.wpd 7

12. Plaintiff’s motion to serve summons/complaint (Docket No. 42) is 

DENIED as moot.

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

May 29, 2008 

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 7 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LOSOYA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEAN S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV05-00509 JW 

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 , 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.

David Losoya B-92935

5905 Lake Earl Drive

P. O. Box 7000

Crescent City, Ca 95531-7000

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:05-cv-00509-JW Document 44 Filed 05/30/08 Page 8 of 8