Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00156/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00156-0/pdf.json

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK PERKINS,

Plaintiff,

 v

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS

OLSON, LUCAS AND KENNEY,

Defendant(s).

 /

No C-10-0156-VRW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 USC § 1983 against 

three San Francisco Police Officers claiming they used excessive

force against him during his arrest. Plaintiff seeks damages. Doc

#1. 

I

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 USC § 1915A(a). 

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

Case 3:10-cv-00156-VRW Document 5 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 6
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

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). Pleadings filed by pro se

litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990).

To state a claim under 42 USC § 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 US 42, 48 (1988).

II

A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive

force in the course of an arrest or other seizure is analyzed under

the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. See Graham v Connor,

490 US 386, 394–95 (1989); Forrester v City of San Diego, 25 F3d

804, 806 (9th Cir 1994), cert denied, 513 US 1152 (1995). 

“Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure

is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful

balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the

individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’ against the countervailing

governmental interests at stake.” See Graham, 490 US at 396

(citations omitted).

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on May 23, 2009, 

San Francisco Police Officer Olson, Badge #376, Sergeant C Lucas,

Case 3:10-cv-00156-VRW Document 5 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 6
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

Badge #912 and Officer Matthew Kenney, Badge #572, used excessive

force against him during his arrest. Specifically, plaintiff claims

he was struck with a baton three times and that after he had fallen

to the ground and was lying on his stomach officers stepped on his 

back and neck. Following his arrest, plaintiff was taken to San

Francisco General Hospital and treated for injuries sustained during

the arrest. Doc #1. 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint appears to

state a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim and the three named

defendants will be served. See Graham, 490 US at 394–95; Forrester,

25 F3d at 806. 

III

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the

complaint in this matter, all attachments thereto, and copies of

this order on defendants San Francisco Police Officer Olson, Badge

#376, Sergeant C Lucas, Badge #912 and Officer Matthew Kenney, Badge

#572, by bringing said copies to Police Legal, Room 575 (5th Floor),

Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street, San Francisco. The clerk also

shall 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 ninety (90) days from the date of

this order, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or

Case 3:10-cv-00156-VRW Document 5 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 6
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

other dispositive motion. A motion for summary judgment 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 defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall

so inform the court prior to the date their motion is due. All

papers filed with the court shall be served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later

than thirty (30) days after defendants serve plaintiff with the

motion. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that 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 contradicts

Case 3:10-cv-00156-VRW Document 5 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 6
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 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 F3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir 1998) (en banc) (App

A). 

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 USC § 1997e(a)

will, if granted, end your case, albeit without prejudice. You must

“develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order to

dispute any “factual record” presented by the defendants in their

motion to dismiss. Wyatt v Terhune, 315 F3d 1108, 1120 n14 (9th Cir

2003).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within

fifteen (15) days of the date on which plaintiff serves them with

the opposition.

 e. 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 is required before

the parties may conduct discovery.

4. 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

Case 3:10-cv-00156-VRW Document 5 Filed 07/28/10 Page 5 of 6
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

defendants or defendants’ counsel.

5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this

case. Plaintiff must keep the court and all parties 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.10\Perkins-10-156-order of servce.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-00156-VRW Document 5 Filed 07/28/10 Page 6 of 6