Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00082/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00082-0/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT MICHAEL CONWAY,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. DIAS, et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-0082-TEH 

ORDER OF SERVICE 

Plaintiff, a detainee at Santa Clara County Jail, proceeds 

with a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has 

paid the filing fee. 

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 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). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

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

1990). 

Case 3:16-cv-00082-RS Document 6 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 7
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Plaintiff states that one correctional officer retaliated 

against him and several officers assaulted him. 

"Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An 

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an 

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and 

that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First 

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 

567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Accord Pratt v. 

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoner suing prison 

officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was 

retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and 

that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate 

penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and 

discipline); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(per curiam) (same); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 

1985) (contention that actions "arbitrary and capricious" 

sufficient to allege retaliation). 

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects 

Case 3:16-cv-00082-RS Document 6 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 7
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

a post-arraignment pretrial detainee1 from the use of excessive 

force that amounts to punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 

386, 395 n.10 (1989) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-

39 (1979)); cf. Pierce v. Multnomah County, Oregon, 76 F.3d 1032, 

1043 (9th Cir. 1996) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard 

applies to allegations of use of excessive force against prearraignment detainee). To prevail under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, 

a pretrial detainee must show only that the “force purposely or 

knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.” 

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). “A court 

must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable 

officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the 

time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. “A court 

(judge or jury) cannot apply this standard mechanically.” Id. 

“[O]bjective reasonableness turns on the ‘facts and circumstances 

of each particular case.’” Id. (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 

U.S. at 396). A non-exhaustive list of considerations that may 

bear on the reasonableness of the force used include “the 

relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount 

of force used; the extent of the plaintiff's injury; any effort 

made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; 

the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat 

reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff 

was actively resisting.” Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alvarez threatened him if 

Plaintiff did not address other inmates regarding their 

 

1

 Plaintiff appears to be a pretrial detainee. If he is a 

convicted prisoner then the Eighth Amendment applies. 

Case 3:16-cv-00082-RS Document 6 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 7
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

misconduct. Later Alvarez strip-searched Plaintiff and provided 

clothes that were too small because Plaintiff failed to act upon 

Alvarez’s request. Liberally construed, this states a cognizable 

claim of retaliation. 

Plaintiff also alleges that Alvarez and several other 

officers assaulted him by stomping on his feet, punching him in 

the face, and hitting him in the area where he just had appendix 

surgery. Plaintiff states he suffered excruciating pain. 

Liberally construed this states a cognizable claim of excessive 

force against these officers. 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the 

United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a 

copy of the complaint (Docket No. 1), and a copy of this order 

upon the following Defendants at Santa Clara County Jail: 

Correctional Officer (“CO”) J. Dias, CO Tejeda #10770, CO Ruban 

#10766, CO Alvarez, Sgt. Pham #1714, and CO Duenas. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the 

Court orders as follows: 

 a. No later than 91 days from the date of service, 

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, and shall include as exhibits 

all records and incident reports stemming from the events at 

issue. If Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be 

Case 3:16-cv-00082-RS Document 6 Filed 02/18/16 Page 4 of 7
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior 

to the date his summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed 

with the Court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff. 

 b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, 

Defendants shall also serve, on a separate paper, the appropriate 

notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 

934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and Wyatt notices must be 

given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to 

dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 

(separate paper requirement). 

 c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, 

if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants 

no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served 

upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE -

- WARNING," which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 

154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. 

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). 

If Defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative 

remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should 

take note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING 

(EXHAUSTION)," which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. 

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 d. If Defendant wishes to file a reply brief, he shall 

do so no later than fifteen days after the opposition is served 

upon him. 

Case 3:16-cv-00082-RS Document 6 Filed 02/18/16 Page 5 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 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. 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 defendants 

or defendants' counsel. 

4. 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) is required before the parties 

may conduct discovery. 

5. 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 with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/17/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\Conway0082.serve.docx

 

Case 3:16-cv-00082-RS Document 6 Filed 02/18/16 Page 6 of 7
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 

 If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure 

to exhaust, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. If the 

motion is granted it will end your case. 

You have the right to present any evidence you may have 

which tends to show that you did exhaust your administrative 

remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations 

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated 

documents, that is, documents accompanied by a declaration 

showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other 

sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and there 

will be no trial. 

Case 3:16-cv-00082-RS Document 6 Filed 02/18/16 Page 7 of 7