Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04037/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04037-0/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

Order Dismissing in Part; of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Harris04037_svc.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVONTE BERNARD HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

MIKE GARDNER, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-04037 JF (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING IN PART;

OF SERVICE ON REMAINING

CLAIM; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials of Pelican Bay State Prison

(“PBSP”). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) shall

be granted in a separate 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

Case 3:09-cv-04037-RS Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 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

Order Dismissing in Part; of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Harris04037_svc.wpd 2

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

liberally construed. See 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff’s claims arises from PBSP officials’ failure to provide him with an

opportunity to confer with his attorney with respect to a federal habeas corpus petition on

appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Compl. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that on June

11, 2008, Defendants would not afford him adequate privacy for a confidential telephone

call with his attorney to confer regarding a brief she was preparing . (Id. at 8-10.) PBSP

officials informed Plaintiff that his attorney would have to visit him in prison in order for

them to provide the level of privacy he desired. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff’s attorney was

unable to visit him at prison and submitted the brief without discussing the facts of the

case with Plaintiff. (Id. at 12.) The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. (Id. at 13.) 

Plaintiff’s first claim is that Defendants violated his right under Article IV, Section

2 of the Constitution to “all privileges as a citizen of California” when they denied him

attorney/client privilege during the June 11, 2008 confidential phone call. (Compl. 13.) 

Article IV, Section 2 states: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges

and immunities of citizens in the several states.” This section affords interstate protection

and prohibits a state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its

own citizens. Plaintiff’s claim does involve interstate discrimination and fails to state a

claim for relief under this section. Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED. 

As his second claim, Plaintiff states that Defendants violated his right to access to

Case 3:09-cv-04037-RS Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 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

Order Dismissing in Part; of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Harris04037_svc.wpd 3

courts. (Compl. 14.) Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). 

A prisoner’s right of access to the courts includes contact visitation with his counsel. See

Ching v. Lewis, 895 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Dreher v. Sielaff, 636

F.2d 1141, 1143 (7th Cir. 1980) (opportunity to communicate privately with attorney is

important part of meaningful access to courts). Liberally construed, this claim is

cognizable under § 1983. 

Plaintiff’s third claim states that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to

freedom of speech when they denied him attorney/client privilege for a private phone call. 

(Compl. 14.) This claim is without merit as the facts alleged raise no concerns that

Plaintiff’s right to free speech was impinged by the denial of a private phone call. 

Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED. 

Claims 5 through 12, (Compl. 15-19), are based solely on state law and are not

actionable under § 1983. The Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over

these claims which substantially dominate Plaintiff’s complaint and are more suitable for

state court. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27 (1966). These claims

are DISMISSED without prejudice to his filing them in state court. 

C. “John Doe” Defendants

Plaintiff names Defendants John Doe One and John Doe Two in his complaint. 

Although the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored in the Ninth

Circuit, see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep't

of Corrections, 406 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1968), situations may arise where the identity

of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint. In such

circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify

the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover their

identities or that the complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See Gillespie, 629

F.2d at 642; Velasquez v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 1986). 

Accordingly, Defendants John Doe One and John Doe Two are DISMISSED from this

Case 3:09-cv-04037-RS Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 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

Order Dismissing in Part; of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Harris04037_svc.wpd 4

action. If through discovery Plaintiff is able to identify these unknown defendants, he

may then motion the Court for leave to amend to name the intended defendants and to

issue summons upon them. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642; Barsten v. Dep’t of the

Interior, 896 F.2d 422, 423-24 (9th Cir. 1990). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants John Doe One and John Doe Two are DISMISSED from this 

action. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal 

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Correctional Office Mike Gardner,

Sergeant D. O’Donnell, Lieutenant Troy Woods, and Warden Robert Horel at

Pelican Bay State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the Complaint

and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

3. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendants shall

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

in the complaint found to be cognizable above, or, within such time, notify the Court that

Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion.

a. If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that

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

§ 1997e(a), Defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied Alameida v.

Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). 

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 Defendants are of

Case 3:09-cv-04037-RS Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 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

 1 The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be given to pro

se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 

See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14.

Order Dismissing in Part; of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Harris04037_svc.wpd 5

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. 

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

and served on Defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants’

motion is filed. 

a. In the event Defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), Plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:1

The Defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground you have not

exhausted your administrative remedies. The motion will, if granted, result

in the dismissal of your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly supported by

declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you may not

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific

facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or documents,

that contradict the facts shown in the Defendant’s declarations and

documents and show that you have in fact exhausted your claims. If you do

not submit your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the 

Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to Plaintiffs:

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

Case 3:09-cv-04037-RS Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 5 of 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

Order Dismissing in Part; of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Harris04037_svc.wpd 6

in favor of defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be no

trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (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) (holding 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 failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and

granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

6. 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. 

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

1/4/10

Case 3:09-cv-04037-RS Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVONTE BERNARD HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MIKE GARDNER, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV09-04037 JF 

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 , 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.

Devonte Bernard Harris P 73399

CA State Prison-Corcoran

P.O. Box 8800

4001 King Avenue

Corcoran, CA 93212

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

1/12/10

1/12/10

Case 3:09-cv-04037-RS Document 4 Filed 01/12/10 Page 7 of 7