Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05868/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05868-2/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RANDY DAVID RAY ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOLLEY MATTEUCI, and

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05868-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE;

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 

TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Randy Robertson’s first federal civil rights complaint was dismissed with 

leave to amend. He filed a first and then a second amended complaint, which is now the 

operative complaint in this action. The second amended complaint, which contains 

allegations of retaliation and unconstitutional conditions of confinement, is now before the 

Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Having concluded that the second amended complaint (Docket No. 17) states 

cognizable claims, the Court directs defendants to file in response to the operative 

complaint a dispositive motion, or notice regarding such motion, on or before June 15, 

2015, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants are to 

adhere to the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this 

order. 

DISCUSSION 

A. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

Case 3:13-cv-05868-WHO Document 23 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 5
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 California

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

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff Robertson alleges that (1) in 2011, Dolly Matteuci, Executive Director of 

Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), transferred him from NSH to a prison (and opposed his 

transfer back to NSH in 2014) in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right of 

access to the courts; and (2) in 2014, David Livingston, Sheriff of Contra Costa County, 

retaliated against him by housing him in unconstitutional conditions in the Contra Costa 

Jail. 

Claim 1, when liberally construed, is cognizable under section 1983 and shall 

proceed. Claim 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice to Robertson filing it in a separate 

civil rights action. Because the claim involves different causes of action against different 

defendants, it must be brought in a separate action. A blank civil rights complaint form 

will be sent to Robertson. 

Case 3:13-cv-05868-WHO Document 23 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 5
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 California

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

Robertson moves for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 20). The decision to 

request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is within “the 

sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional 

circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 

America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact 

that the pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily 

qualify the issues involved as complex. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 

Cir. 1997). It is too early in the litigation of this matter to determine whether counsel 

should be appointed. When the record is more fully developed, the Court will decide on its 

own motion whether to appoint counsel. Accordingly, Robertson’s motion is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court 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 operative complaint in this 

matter (Docket No. 17), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Dolly 

Matteuci, Executive Director at Napa State Hospital. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy 

copies of the operative complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s 

Office. 

 2. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall 

file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims 

in the complaint found to be cognizable above. 

 a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff 

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by 

Case 3:13-cv-05868-WHO Document 23 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 5
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 California

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 

 b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 

Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 

and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ 

motion is filed. 

 4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

 5. 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. 

 6. All communications by the 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. 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) or Local 

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 

 8. 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. 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). 

 9. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 

 10. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be 

given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions 

Case 3:13-cv-05868-WHO Document 23 Filed 03/19/15 Page 4 of 5
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 California

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or 

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 

2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they file and serve 

any motion for summary judgment: 

The defendants have 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 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 F.3d 952, 

962–63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

11. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 20. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 19, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05868-WHO Document 23 Filed 03/19/15 Page 5 of 5