Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05527/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05527-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TYNISHA MARIE HORNBUCKLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WARDEN MATEVOUSIAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-05527-PJH 

ORDER OF SERVICE 

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The second amended 

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed a third amended 

complaint. 

DISCUSSION 

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which 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. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

Case 4:16-cv-05527-PJH Document 22 Filed 01/09/17 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

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a private cause of action under Bivens, and its progeny, a plaintiff must 

allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution of the United States was violated, and 

(2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a federal actor. Van Strum v. Lawn, 

940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991) (§ 1983 and Bivens actions are identical save for the 

replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff states that she received inadequate medical care at FCI-Dublin. 

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

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. 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). 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. Id. at 1059. 

Case 4:16-cv-05527-PJH Document 22 Filed 01/09/17 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 “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. 

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. Id. at 

1059-60. 

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). The prison official must 

not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 

risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official 

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the 

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 

F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and 

prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” 

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Plaintiff states that various doctors and officials denied proper medical care or 

failed to adequately treat her and a correctional officer denied medical care and never 

called for assistance when she vomited and collapsed. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s 

allegations against Mr. Litsenberger, Officer Raski, Physician’s Assistant Cespedes, 

Physician’s Assistant Johnson, Warden Matevousian, and Dr. Snell are sufficient to 

proceed. Plaintiff identifies several other individuals and describes their actions; 

however, her bare allegations with little information fail to set forth a constitutional 

violation against these parties. 

CONCLUSION 

1. All defendants are dismissed with prejudice except Mr. Litsenberger, Officer 

Raski, Physician’s Assistant Cespedes, Physician’s Assistant Johnson, Warden 

Case 4:16-cv-05527-PJH Document 22 Filed 01/09/17 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

Matevousian, and Dr. Snell. 

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 

without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this 

order on the following defendants at FCI-Dublin: Mr. Litsenberger, Officer Raski, 

Physician’s Assistant Cespedes, Warden Matevousian , and Dr. Snell. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows: 

 a. No later than sixty 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 

resolved by summary judgment, she shall so inform the court prior to the date her 

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), 

Case 4:16-cv-05527-PJH Document 22 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

pla

(EX

11

fifte

du

def

do

Pro

req

info

“No

fas

pu

Da

\\can

serv

aintiff should

XHAUSTIO

08, 1120 n

een days a

e. No hear

4. All c

fendant’s c

cument to d

5. Disc

ocedure. N

quired befo

6. It is

ormed of a

otice of Cha

shion. Failu

rsuant to F

IT IS S

ated: Janua

ndoak.cand.circ9

ve.docx 

d take note

ON)," which 

. 4 (9th Cir.

d. If defen

after the opp

e. The mo

ring will be 

communica

counsel onc

defendants

covery may

No further c

re the parti

s plaintiff's r

ny change 

ange of Ad

ure to do so

ederal Rule

SO ORDER

ry 9, 2017 

 

9.dcn\data\users

e of the atta

is provided

. 2003). 

dant wishe

position is s

otion shall b

held on the

ations by pla

ce counsel h

s or defenda

y be taken i

ourt order u

es may con

responsibilit

of address 

dress.” He

o may resul

e of Civil Pr

RED. 

\PJHALL\_psp\2

5

ached page 

d to him as 

es to file a re

served upon

be deemed 

e motion un

aintiff with t

has been d

ants' couns

in accordan

under Fede

nduct disco

ty to prosec

by filing a s

e also must 

lt in the dism

rocedure 41

2016\2016_05527

 headed "N

required by

eply brief, h

n her. 

submitted a

nless the co

the court m

designated, 

sel. 

nce with the

eral Rule of

overy. 

cute this ca

separate pa

comply wit

missal of th

1(b). 

 

PH

Un

7_Hornbuckle_v_

NOTICE -- W

y Wyatt v. T

he shall do 

as of the da

ourt so orde

must be serv

by mailing 

e Federal R

f Civil Proce

ase. Plainti

aper with th

th the court

his action fo

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

v_Washington-Ad

WARNING 

Terhune, 3

so no later

ate the repl

ers at a late

ved on defe

 a true copy

Rules of Civ

edure 30(a)

ff must kee

he clerk hea

t's orders in

or failure to 

HAMILTON

s District Ju

dduci_(PSP)\16-c

15 F.3d 

r than 

ly brief is 

er date. 

endant, or 

y of the 

vil 

)(2) is 

ep the court

aded 

n a timely 

prosecute 

N

udge 

cv-05527-PJHt

Case 4:16-cv-05527-PJH Document 22 Filed 01/09/17 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

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 4:16-cv-05527-PJH Document 22 Filed 01/09/17 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

TY

W

U.S

by 

he

co

Ty

FC

11

P O

Ali

Da

YNISHA MA

v. 

WARDEN M

I, the u

S. District C

That o

placing sa

reinafter lis

py(ies) into

nisha Marie

CI Aliceville 

070 Highwa

O Box 4000

ceville, AL 

ated: Janua

N

ARIE HOR

Plaintiff, 

MATEVOUS

Defendan

undersigned

Court, North

n January 9

id copy(ies

sted, by dep

o an inter-of

e Hornbuck

ay 14 

0

35442 

ry 9, 2017 

UNITED 

NORTHER

RNBUCKLE

SIAN, et al.,

ts. 

d, hereby ce

hern Distric

9, 2017, I S

) in a posta

positing said

ffice deliver

kle ID: 6638

7

STATES D

RN DISTRIC

,

ertify that I 

ct of Californ

SERVED a t

age paid en

d envelope

ry receptacl

83-097

S

C

By

N

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CAL

Case No.

CERTIFIC

am an emp

nia. 

true and co

velope add

e in the U.S

le located i

usan Y. So

Clerk, United

y:________

ichole Peric

onorable P

COURT 

LIFORNIA 

16-cv-055

CATE OF S

ployee in th

orrect copy(

dressed to t

. Mail, or by

n the Clerk

oong 

d States Dis

_________

c, Deputy C

PHYLLIS J. 

527-PJH 

SERVICE 

he Office of

(ies) of the 

the person(

y placing sa

k's office. 

strict Court

_________

Clerk to the

HAMILTON

f the Clerk, 

attached, 

(s) 

aid 

e 

N

Case 4:16-cv-05527-PJH Document 22 Filed 01/09/17 Page 7 of 7