Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01229/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01229-4/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01229-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

PENDING MOTION; SCREENING 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDMENT TO THE 

COMPLAINT; AND SETTING NEW 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

I. BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Jerome Packnett, a state prisoner 

currently incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”), in which he alleged 

that Defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was housed at San Quentin State Prison 

(“SQSP”) from November through December 2012. Plaintiff, who claims he suffers from severe 

mobility impairment, alleges numerous claims stemming from his November 2012 sub-facility 

transfer from H-Unit Facility B to South Block without any classification committee hearing prior 

to the transfer. The alleged constitutional violations at SQSP ended on December 26, 2012, which 

is the date that Plaintiff was transferred from SQSP to RJDCF, with layovers at the California 

Training Facility and the California Institution for Men (“CIM”). Plaintiff seeks monetary and 

punitive damages as well as declaratory relief.

In his original complaint, Plaintiff named the following Defendants at SQSP: Doctors 

Fernand Alvarez and Alison Pachynski; Correctional Counselors B. Martin and F. Gray; Acting 

Facility Captain V. Wiggins; Classification Staff Representative B. Powell; Appeals Coordinators 

S. Hays and M. L. Davis. He also named the following Defendants at CIM: Associate Warden D. 

King; Chief Deputy Warden M. M. Hill; Appeal Examiner R. Briggs; and Warden “John Doe.” 

Finally, he named the following Defendants in relation to his claims at RJDCF: Warden Daniel 

Paramo; Doctors G. Casian, K. Seeley, Robert Medrano and J. Nickolic; Third Level of Appeals 

Chief J. D. Lozano; and Office of Appeals Chief L. D. Zamora. 

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 8
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

In an Order dated July 10, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint and

ordered as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claims relating to all problems during his incarceration at CIM were

dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling them in a new civil rights action in the Eastern 

Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims relating to all problems during his incarceration at RJDCF were

dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling them in a new civil rights action in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

3. Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim against Defendants Alvarez, Pachynski, 

Martin, Wiggins, Gray and Powell, who are individual prison officials, were dismissed with 

prejudice. If Plaintiff had chosen instead to name SQSP and the CDCR as Defendants, then his 

ADA and Section 504 claims against these public entitles would have been dismissed with leave 

to amend. Plaintiff was directed that he may file an amended disability discrimination claim 

within twenty-eight days of the Court’s July 10, 2015 Order. Plaintiff was instructed that he “shall 

resubmit only that claim and not the entire complaint.” He was further instructed that the 

amended claim must be submitted on an amendment to the complaint, that it must include the 

caption as well as the civil case number of this action (C 15-1229 YGR (PR)), and that it must 

include the words “AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff was 

warned that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s 

disability discrimination claim.

4. Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs against Defendants Alvarez, Pachynski, Martin, Wiggins, Gray and Powell.

5. Plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy against Defendants Alvarez, Martin, Wiggins, and 

Gray was dismissed without prejudice.

6. Plaintiff stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants 

Alvarez, Martin, Wiggins, and Gray.

7. Plaintiff’s claims relating to a violation of his rights under the Armstrong Remedial 

Plan were dismissed without prejudice. 

8. Plaintiff stated a cognizable due process claim relating to the prison grievance 

system again Defendants Hays and Davis.

9. The Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

See Dkt. 5 at 11-12. 

The Court then directed the Clerk to serve the complaint and issued a briefing schedule for 

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 8
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

the served Defendants to file a dispositive motion. See id. at 12-15.

On August 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file his amendment 

to the complaint. Dkt. 12.

In an Order dated August 26, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 

time, and directed Plaintiff to file his amendment to the complaint no later than twenty-eight days 

from the date of this Order. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff was again instructed that he may amend only the 

disability discrimination claim and not the entire complaint. Id. at 1.

On September 11, 2015, Defendants Wiggins, Alvarez, Pachynski, Gray, Davis, and 

Martin answered Plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. 17. 

On September 29, 2015, Defendant Hay answered the complaint. Dkt. 19. 

On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Amendment to the Complaint. Dkt. 21.

On October 22, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to the 

Complaint on the grounds that it was untimely under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Dkt. 22. In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s 

Amendment to the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Id. at 3-4. Defendants also filed a

motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. 23.

On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motion to strike. Dkt. 27.

In an Order dated December 4, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for an 

extension of time to file a dispositive motion up to twenty-eight days after it rules on Defendants’ 

pending Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to the Complaint. Dkt. 30.

On January 19, 2016, Defendant Powell answered the complaint. Dkt. 32.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Defendants move the Court to strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to the Complaint as untimely 

under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 22. Defendants claim that 

Plaintiff’s Amendment to the Complaint was due on August 7, 2015, which was twenty-eight days 

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 8
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

after the Court’s July 10, 2015 Order. Id. at 3. However, the Court notes that because Plaintiff 

had been granted an extension of time in its August 26, 2015 Order, his Amendment to the 

Complaint was due twenty-eight days after August 26, 2015, or on September 23, 2015. Dkt. 15 

at 1. Plaintiff’s Amendment to the Complaint was signed on September 26, 2015, and thus it is 

deemed filed as of that date pursuant to the mail box rule. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 

1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that the mailbox rule applies to the filing of a federal civil rights 

complaint). Because Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner, and his Amendment to the Complaint was filed 

only three days after the due date, the Court finds that it was timely filed. Therefore, the Court 

DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to the Complaint as untimely. Dkt. 

22.

B. Review of Amended Disability Discrimination Claim

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s alternate request to screen Plaintiff’s Amendment to the 

Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dkt. 22. 

First, the Court notes that it only gave Plaintiff leave to amend his disability discrimination 

claim; therefore, it will only review the allegations relating to that claim in his Amendment to the 

Complaint. All other claims will not be reviewed, including the re-alleged disability 

discrimination claims against Defendants Alvarez, Pachynski, Martin, Wiggins, Gray and Powell 

which have been previously dismissed with prejudice in the Court’s July 10, 2015 Order. Dkt. 5 

at 4. 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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). 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. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 8
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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

In his Amendment to the Complaint, Plaintiff has filed his amended disability 

discrimination claim against SQSP and the CDCR. Dkt. 21 at 4-5. Plaintiff states as follows:

16. On October 17, 2011, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a 

“Mobility Impairment,” Chronic Lower Extremity Weakness . . . 

ambulatory with a cane. On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff was diagnosed 

with “Severe Canal Stenosis, Severe Bilateral Disk Disease with 

Foraminal narrowing with Nerve Root Impingement.[”] Including 

Degenerative changes at multiple levels of Lumbar Spine. Exhibit 

B, Attachment VIII. Medical Chrono’s indicated no prolonged 

sitting, no stooping or bending over, identifying Plaintiff as 

“Mobility Impaired.” (walking is a major life activity). Plaintiff 

was qualified to participate in every program or service held in HUnit, including “Classification Hearing.[”]

17. Plaintiff was arbitrarily excluded from participating in HUnit Classification Committee Hearing by a non-treating physician 

from outside of H[-]Unit who increased disability level without 

Notice, Warning or consult with one of the Plaintiff’s primary care 

physicians. Every part of H-Unit was accessible to individuals with 

disabilities, and upon information and belief [SQSP] and [the 

CRCD] both receive federal funding. At that time, Plaintiff was 

housed in H-Unit, Facility B, a general population low security unit 

at SQSP. Plaintiff’s medical needs are complex and involved three 

(3) treating physicians, one primary care physician and two 

specialist[s]; Dr. Clarene David, M.D. (P&S); Dr. Denise Ricker, 

M.D.[,] Nephrologist; and Dr. John Panagotacos, M.D., Neurologist.

Id.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq., 

and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and codified in 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the programs, services or activities of a public 

entity. The elements of a cause of action under Title II of the ADA are: (1) that the plaintiff is a 

qualified individual with a disability; (2) that the plaintiff was either excluded from participation 

in or denied the benefits of a service, program, or activity of a public entity, or was otherwise 

discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or 

discrimination was by reason of disability. Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th 

2001); 42 U.S.C. § 12132. A cause of action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 5 of 8
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 California

essentially parallels an ADA cause of action. See Olmstead v. Zimring, 119 S. Ct. 2176, 2182 

(1999); Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1135.

In his Amendment to the Complaint, Plaintiff seems to raise the same conclusory 

allegations that he made in his original complaint, including that he was discriminated against 

because of his disability. In addition to the aforementioned allegations, Plaintiff also states as 

follows:

Plaintiff is an individual diagnosed with a severe mobility 

impairment along with a degenerative back disorder; but was 

otherwise qualified to [be a] participant in H-Unit Program & 

Classification Hearing. Plaintiff was excluded and denied the 

benefits of San Quentin H-Unit services, activities, and 

Classification Hearing. Such exclusion was based on an increase in 

mobility impairment level, (allegedly because he could not do stairs) 

which was by reason of his disability. Plaintiff was treated 

differently than all other non-disabled prisoner housed in H-Unit.

Dkt. 21 at 7. Even after being directed to do so, Plaintiff does not specifically allege how he was 

treated differently than similarly-situated non-disabled inmates, and he does not elaborate on his 

conclusory allegation that he was excluded from participation in “H-Unit services [and] activities”

because of his disability. Plaintiff’s allegations lack the specifics required for an ADA or 

Rehabilitation Act claim, such as a description of the “public services, programs, and activities” 

that Plaintiff was allegedly denied. Instead, Plaintiff only specifically alleges that he was excluded 

and denied the benefits of “H-Unit Classification Committee Hearing.” Dkt. 21 at 5. However, 

the Court has previously found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim 

relating to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by Defendants Alvarez, Pachynski, 

Martin, Wiggins, Gray and Powell for “increasing his mobility restrictions and causing his transfer 

from H-Unit Facility B to South Block without any classification committee hearing prior to the 

transfer.” Dkt. 5 at 6. 

In sum, in his attempt to amend his disability discrimination claim, Plaintiff indicates he 

suffers from a disability relating to his “sever mobility impairment,” but he fails to describe how 

he was denied equal access to prison services, programs, or activities as a result of his disability. 

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 6 of 8
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 California

As explained above, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations do not describe the “H-Unit services [and]

activities” that he was allegedly denied and fails to explain whether he was denied similar services 

and activities after his transfer to South Block at SQSP. See id. at 7, 10-11. Therefore, while 

Plaintiff names the proper Defendants, he has failed to state a cognizable disability discrimination 

claim against SQSP and the CDCR. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ADA and Section 504 claims against SQSP and the CDCR are 

DISMISSED without further leave to amend.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants’ pending motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Dkt. 22. 

Specifically, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amendment to the Complaint is DENIED, 

and their Alternative Request for Screening Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is GRANTED. 

2. The Court has screened Plaintiff’s Amendment to the Complaint only as to 

Plaintiff’s ADA and Section 504 claims against SQSP and the CDCR, which are DISMISSED 

without further leave to amend. All other claims in the Amendment to the Complaint were not 

reviewed, and as mentioned above, Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims against Defendants 

Alvarez, Pachynski, Martin, Wiggins, Gray and Powell have previously been DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

3. The parties shall abide by the following briefing schedule:

a. No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, 

Defendants shall file their dispositive motion;

b. Plaintiff shall file his opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of the filing 

of Defendants’ dispositive motion; and

c. Defendants’ reply brief must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the filing 

of Plaintiff’s opposition. Absent further order, the motion will be deemed submitted when the 

reply is filed.

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

4. 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 fourteen (14) days prior to the 

deadline sought to be extended.

5. This Order terminates Docket No. 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

April 20, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-01229-YGR Document 33 Filed 04/20/16 Page 8 of 8