Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00722/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00722-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

 Plaintiff named "Officer Bergeron" in his complaint. 

Clerk's staff was informed that there is only one Officer Bergeron

at OPD. His first name is William, and his badge number is 7828.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN L. HOPKINS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OAKLAND POLICE OFFICER 

WILLIAM BERGERON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00722 CW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE AND ADDRESSING

PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 13, 18)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

 Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims

are alleged to have occurred in Alameda County, which is located in

this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In his complaint, Plaintiff names Oakland Police Department

(OPD) Officer William Bergeron1 and several Doe Defendants. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

Plaintiff has filed a "Motion Requesting for an Order to be

Issued for Defendants to Respond," which the Court construes as a

motion to screen the complaint. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's

motion and will screen the complaint below.

Plaintiff has also filed a "Motion to Obtain Records From

Police Department Incident Reports." His motion, which the Court

construes as a discovery motion, is DENIED as premature, as

explained below.

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 10
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

2

DISCUSSION

I. 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. 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. Id.

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). 

II. Legal Claims

A. Retaliation Claim

Plaintiff alleges several acts of retaliation by Defendant

Bergeron and other OPD officers, including: (1) on August 12, 2007,

an unnamed OPD officer pulled Plaintiff over for a "faulty moving

violation" and "subjected [him] to humiliating insulting bodycavity searches of [his] rectum area;" (2) August 18, 2007,

Defendant Bergeron wrongfully charged Plaintiff with possession of

crack cocaine only to have the "charges later dismissed;" and

(3) on September 1, 2007, two unnamed OPD officers stopped

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 10
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

2

 Attached to Plaintiff's complaint are two handwritten pages

summarizing Plaintiff's version of the facts; however, they are not

numbered. The Court will number these pages as 3a and 3b.

3

Plaintiff for a "warrant check" and subjected him to an "analcavity body search." (Compl. at 3a-b.)2

 Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants' actions were in retaliation against him because he

received "a 2006 settlement rendered by City of Oakland for

misconduct by its Oakland Police Officers." Plaintiff is referring

to his previous suit against OPD officers in Case no. C 01-04972

(CW) (PR), which was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a

settlement on May 25, 2006. 

Citizens may not be retaliated against for exercising their

right of access to the courts. Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454,

461 (9th Cir. 1995). This constitutional prohibition clearly

includes retaliation for filing a complaint. See Sorrano's Gasco

v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). In 1999, the Ninth

Circuit granted qualified immunity to a defendant on grounds that

it was not clearly established that it is unconstitutional to

retaliate against an individual who already had fully accessed the

courts by winning a case. See Lytle v. Wondrash, 182 F.3d 1083,

1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 1999).

In the present case, Plaintiff too has fully accessed the

courts because his previous suit was dismissed pursuant to a

settlement. Nonetheless, the Court finds that, liberally

construed, Plaintiff's claim for retaliation is cognizable. See

id.

 B. Claim Against Unnamed Defendants

Plaintiff refers to several unnamed OPD officers (in the

August 12, 2007 and September 1, 2007 incidents), whose names he

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 10
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

3

 Plaintiff does not specify which of his previous suits he is

referring to, but the Court notes that he pursued the same claims

as the present case in Case no. C 07-6096 CW (PR). That case was

dismissed without prejudice on May 16, 2008 because Plaintiff

failed to comply with the Court's March 17, 2008 Order directing

him to submit a non-prisoner application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

4

intends to learn through discovery. Plaintiff claims that he has

been unable to "obtain documentation" relating to these two

incidents from the "Records Division of Oakland's Police Department

and its Internal Affairs Division, where a complaint was lodged in

these incidents." (Compl. at 3b.) Furthermore, Plaintiff claims

that since his "first complaint in federal court [was] dismissed

without prejudice," he has "been pulled over continuously and

subjected to searches for no probably cause."3 (Id.)

Where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be known prior

to the filing of a complaint the plaintiff should be given an

opportunity through discovery to identify them. See Gillespie v.

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Failure to afford

the plaintiff such an opportunity is error. See Wakefield v.

Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the

claims against the unnamed defendants are DISMISSED from this

action without prejudice. Should Plaintiff learn the identity of

the unnamed defendants through discovery, he may move to file an

amendment to the complaint to add them as named defendants. See

Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir.

2003).

III. Discovery Motion

Plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Obtain Records From Police

Department Incident Reports," which the Court construes as a

discovery motion. He asks the Court to direct the OPD to produce

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 10
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

5

the "incident reports" stemming from the incidents he alleged in

his civil rights complaint, in which he was "pulled over in [his]

vehicle and pedestrian stops by [OPD] . . . from 2007-2009." 

(Discovery Mot. at 1.)

Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they

cannot resolve among themselves may they ask the Court to intervene

in the discovery process. Here, the parties have not yet begun the

discovery process. Accordingly, Plaintiff's discovery motion is

premature. Moreover, it may be that Plaintiff will obtain some

sought-after discovery by way of Defendant's dispositive motion and

accompanying exhibits, a copy of which shall be served upon

Plaintiff by Defendant. For these reasons, Plaintiff's discovery

motion (docket no. 13) is DENIED as premature. Discovery may be

taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, as directed below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting for an Order to be Issued

for Defendants to Respond" (docket no. 18), which the Court

construed as a motion to screen the complaint is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff presents a constitutionally cognizable 

retaliation claim against Defendant Bergeron.

3. The claims against the unnamed defendants are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4. Plaintiff's "Motion to Obtain Records From Police

Department Incident Reports" (docket no. 13), which the Court

construed as a discovery motion, is DENIED as premature. 

5. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 5 of 10
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

6

Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver

of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint and all attachments

thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to OPD Officer

William Bergeron (Badge no. 7828). The Clerk of the Court shall

also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order to the

Alameda County Counsel's Office. Additionally, the Clerk shall

mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

6. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure requires Defendant to cooperate in saving

unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendant, after being notified of this

action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive

service of the summons, fails to do so, Defendant will be required

to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for

their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on

the date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule

12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be required to serve and file an

answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request

for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than

would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) 

Defendant is asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of

the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the

parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If

service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before

Defendant has been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty

(60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or

twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 6 of 10
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

7

is later. 

7. Defendant shall answer the complaint in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following briefing

schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date

Defendant's answer is due, Defendant 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. If Defendant

is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, Defendant 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 Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than

sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendant's motion is

filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should

be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion:

The defendant has 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

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 7 of 10
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

8

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 the

defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will

be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (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)

(party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence

showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element

of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the

burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared

to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files

his opposition to Defendant's dispositive motion. Such evidence

may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to

the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn

declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

c. If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, Defendant

shall do so no later than thirty (30) days after the date

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.

8. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant

to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendant to depose Plaintiff

and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 8 of 10
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

9

9. 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.

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.

11. 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended.

12. This Order terminates Docket nos. 13 and 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/11/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 9 of 10
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

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN L. HOPKINS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-00722 CW 

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 May 11, 2010, 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.

Kevin L. Hopkins PFN #AKV-006

Santa Rita Jail

5325 Broder Blvd

Dublin, CA 94568

(additional documents mailed to the party below are: Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver

of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the

complaint and all attachments )

OPD Officer William Bergeron (Badge no. 7828) 

455-7th Street

Oakland, CA 94607-3985 

(additional documents mailed to the party below are: a copy of the complaint)

Alameda County Counsel’s Office 

1221 Oak Street, Suite 450

Oakland, CA 94612 

Dated: May 11, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-00722-CW Document 21 Filed 05/11/10 Page 10 of 10