Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00489/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00489-4/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 of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.06\Thomas489_svc-am.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DONNELL THOMAS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. CELAYA, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-00489 JF (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE OF SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found the first amended complaint, when liberally

construed, stated cognizable claims, and ordered service on Defendants. On September

23, 2009, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. (Docket

No. 66.) On October 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”). 

(Docket No. 67), which is now before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A.

///

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 71 Filed 04/21/10 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 of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.06\Thomas489_svc-am.wpd 2

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 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 allegations involve events that occurred at SVSP between November 4,

2002 and August 28, 2003, when Plaintiff was transferred to another prison. Plaintiff

alleges the following claims as grounds for relief: 1) Defendants retaliated against

Plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment rights; 2) Defendants violated Plaintiff’s

First Amendment right of access to courts; 3) Defendants used excessive force against

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment; 4) Plaintiff suffered inhumane conditions in violation of the Eighth

Amendment; and 5) Defendants failed to provide adequate care for Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable under § 1983.

Plaintiff named Captain A. Hedgpeth as a defendant in this action. (SAC at 3.) 

However, Plaintiff has failed to state specific facts with respect to Defendant Hedgpeth’s

personal actions to show that he is liable for any violation of Plaintiff’s rights. Under §

1983, liability may be imposed on an individual defendant only if the plaintiff can show

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 71 Filed 04/21/10 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 of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.06\Thomas489_svc-am.wpd 3

that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Similarly, a supervisor may be liable

under § 1983 only upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional

deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful

conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d

1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). Plaintiff makes no mention of Defendant Hedgpeth

throughout the statement of the case, (SAC at 5-20), and then states Defendant’s name for

the first time in the claims for relief, (SAC at 20). Without facts in support thereof,

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Hedgpeth violated his rights are conclusory. Lastly,

it is well established that under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability

under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, all

claims against Defendant Hedgpeth are DISMISSED as Plaintiff has failed to state any

claims against this defendant in the second amended complaint. No further amendment

will be permitted with respect to this defendant as Plaintiff was twice granted leave to file

an amended complaint to correct just such a deficiency. (See Docket No. 66 at 6-7.)

CONCLUSION

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

1. Defendant Captain A. Hedgpeth is DISMISSED from this action for 

Plaintiff’s failure allege sufficient facts to state a claim. The clerk shall terminate

Defendant Hedgpeth 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 second amended complaint (Docket

No. 67) in this matter, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants

Lieutenant J. Celaya, Lieutenant Ross, Correctional Officer Kolwouski,

Correctional Officer J. Lopez, Sergeant J. Newton, Sergeant Locke, and Sergeant J.

Stevenson at Salinas Valley State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of

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

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 71 Filed 04/21/10 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

 1The 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 of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.06\Thomas489_svc-am.wpd 4

The clerk shall terminate all other defendants from this action as defendants not

named in the second amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

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 as set forth above. 

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 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. 

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

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 71 Filed 04/21/10 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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.06\Thomas489_svc-am.wpd 5

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

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. 

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 71 Filed 04/21/10 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 of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.06\Thomas489_svc-am.wpd 6

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

4/16/10

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 71 Filed 04/21/10 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. CELAYA, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV06-00489 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.

Larry Donnell Thomas H-79847

Kern Valley State Prison

PO Box 5103

C-1-107 Low

Delano, CA 93216

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

4/21/10

4/21/10

Case 5:06-cv-00489-JF Document 71 Filed 04/21/10 Page 7 of 7