Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04693/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04693-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OMARR L. BURNETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPUTY FRAYNE, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-04693 SBA (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. Venue is proper because the

events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred at the San Mateo County Jail (SMCJ)

and at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), which are both located in this judicial district. See 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In his complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: SMCJ Deputies Frayne and

Buck; SMCJ Correctional Officers Adler and Bow; as well as SQSP Physician Ericsson. Plaintiff

seeks declaratory relief and monetary damages.

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). 

Case 4:09-cv-04693-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Legal Claims

A. Excessive Force

A prisoner has the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including physical

abuse by guards. Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a goodfaith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Hudson

v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 317 (1986)). 

Plaintiff alleges that on September 29, 2005, he was subjected to excessive force by

Defendants Frayne, Adler, Buck and Bow at the SMCJ. Plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries as

a result of this incident. 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim

against Defendants Frayne, Adler, Buck and Bow. 

B. Deliberate Indifference

Plaintiff's allegations also state a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs. 

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 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). A prison official is

deliberately indifferent if he or she 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). 

Plaintiff was eventually transferred to SQSP. Plaintiff states that he suffered from longCase 4:09-cv-04693-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 6
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 originally listed Defendant Adler with badge number "#24." (Compl. at 1.) Clerk's

Office staff has been informed that Defendant Adler originally had badge number 24; however, he now

has badge number 859.

3

lasting injuries stemming from the September 29, 2005 incident. He claims that on June 2, 2006, he

was still in need of treatment for pain in his "wrist and ankle." Plaintiff was seen by Defendant

Ericsson, who "could not help [him] regarding [his] injuries to [his] wrist and ankle." Plaintiff

claims that Defendant Ericsson refused to provide him with medical treatment for his injuries. 

Plaintiff has adequately pled cognizable claims against Defendant Ericsson.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for the use of excessive force

against Defendants Frayne, Adler, Buck and Bow; and for deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs against Defendant Ericsson.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a 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 thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to: SMCJ Deputies Frayne (D-665),

Adler (D-859)1

 and Buck (D-824); SMCJ Correctional Officer Bow (C-117); as well as SQSP

Physician Ericsson. The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of

this Order to the San Mateo County Counsel's Office as well as the State Attorney General's Office

in San Francisco. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

3. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant

to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of

Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they 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 Defendants had been served on the date that the

waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants 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. 

Case 4:09-cv-04693-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

(This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is

necessary.) Defendants are 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 Defendants have 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 is later. 

4. Defendants 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 their answer is due, 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. If Defendants are 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 Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

and served on Defendants no later than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' 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 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.

Case 4:09-cv-04693-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 6
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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Burnett4693.service.wpd5

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

Defendants' 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 Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they 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.

5. 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 Defendants to depose

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/23/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04693-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 5 of 6
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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Burnett4693.service.wpd6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OMARR L. BURNETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRAYNE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-04693 SBA 

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 April 26, 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.

O’Marr L. Burnett F-26842

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Dated: April 26, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04693-SBA Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 6 of 6