Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04068/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04068-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTWINE BLACKMON, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. CHARLES LEE; DR. ROBERT

BOWMAN; KATHERN WALL, Director

of Nursing; DELFS, R.N.; C. KATES,

A.G.P.A., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4068 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE OF

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

CLAIM

(Docket Nos. 2, 4, 5)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison in Soledad, California, has filed this civil rights complaint regarding

the conditions of his confinement there. This Court now reviews Plaintiff’s complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and orders service of the complaint on Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4, 5) are GRANTED in a

separate order filed simultaneously.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that after he suffered a stroke in 2003, Plaintiff

sustained lost movement in his left arm and partial paralysis on his left side. After

Plaintiff filed a request seeking accommodations under the Disability Placement Program

at the prison and that he be issued a cane for walking and be referred for physical

Case 3:07-cv-04068-JSW Document 7 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 7
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

therapy, Dr. Bowman approved his requests. However, Plaintiff alleges that he was

never provided these services and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs by failing to provide and/or interfering with the provision of this

necessary medical care. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as

damages. 

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

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

ANALYSIS

I. Deliberate Indifference Claim

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en

Case 3:07-cv-04068-JSW Document 7 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 7
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

banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of

"deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the

prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. See

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059.

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id.

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). The existence of an injury that a reasonable

doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities; or the

existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a

"serious" need for medical treatment. See id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright,

900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)).

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable

steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In order for deliberate

indifference to be established, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part

of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v.

Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). As such,

Plaintiff has stated a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs

against Defendants Lee, Bowman, Wall, Delfs and Kates. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff states a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference against Defendants

Lee, Bowman, Wall, Delfs and Kates of Salinas Valley State Prison. Doe Defendants are

DISMISSED from this action, as Plaintiff has not alleged any wrongdoing in the

complaint by any Doe Defendants. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the

Case 3:07-cv-04068-JSW Document 7 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 7
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

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:

Defendants Dr. Charles Lee, Dr. Robert Bowman, K. Wall, Director of Nursing,

Delfs, Facility C Triage R.N. and C. Kates, A.G.P.A. of Salinas Valley State Prison.

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, Defendant

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. 

Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

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

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so

inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

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 Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendant’s

motion is filed. The following notice is for the benefit of all pro se litigants:

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,

Case 3:07-cv-04068-JSW Document 7 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

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).

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. Defendant 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. 

3. 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.

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

granted. 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 Defendant,

or Defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to Defendant or Defendant’s 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 paper captioned “Notice of

Change of Address.” Plaintiff must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 

Case 3:07-cv-04068-JSW Document 7 Filed 11/27/07 Page 5 of 7
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

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: November 27, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04068-JSW Document 7 Filed 11/27/07 Page 6 of 7
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

ANTWINE BLACKMON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES D LEE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04068 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 November 27, 2007, 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.

Antwine T. Blackmon

J63038

S.V.S.P.

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Dated: November 27, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04068-JSW Document 7 Filed 11/27/07 Page 7 of 7