Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01488/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01488-3/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

JOSEPH GRIMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DUNLAP and

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01488-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DISSOLVING STAY;

ORDER OF SERVICE; 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

Dkt. Nos. 27 and 28

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Joseph Grimes alleges that a delay in giving him gloves violated the Eighth 

Amendment and his rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act. His civil rights 

complaint containing these allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The suit was stayed so that Grimes could comply with state law 

requirements, as detailed below. The stay is DISSOLVED. 

Having concluded that the first amended complaint (Docket No. 28) 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 January 16, 

2018, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants comply 

with 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 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 32 Filed 10/03/17 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 

Grimes, a wheelchair-bound state prisoner who is proceeding pro se, alleges Kathy 

Chisum, now deceased, and John Dunlap, her supervisor and Chief Medical Officer at 

Salinas Valley State Prison, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him gloves 

in 2014. He also alleges that the prison violated his rights under the Americans With 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

1. Kathy Chisum

As noted in two prior orders, Chisum’s death significantly affects plaintiff’s attempt 

to recover damages because of her alleged actions. (Dkt. Nos. 21 and 25.) In those orders, 

the Court detailed the complex state law requirements Grimes must comply with in order 

to lawfully sue Chisum’s estate. It is clear from Grimes’s filings that he has not complied 

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 32 Filed 10/03/17 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

with these requirements. Accordingly, the claims against Chisum and her estate (and its 

representative Jim Chisum) are DISMISSED without prejudice to Grimes refiling them 

after he has complied with state law probate requirements. 

2. John Dunlap and Salinas Valley State Prison

When liberally construed, Grimes has stated a claim against Dunlap under the 

Eighth Amendment; and against Salinas Valley State Prison1under the ADA. 

MOTIONS

Grimes’s motions to reinstate the proceedings and for leave to file an amended 

complaint (Dkt Nos. 27 and 28) are GRANTED. The stay is DISSOLVED and the Clerk 

shall modify the docket accordingly. 

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. 28), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the warden 

of Salinas Valley State Prison, and Salinas Valley employee and Chief Medical Officer 

John Dunlap. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the operative complaint and this 

order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

2. On or before January 16, 2018, defendants shall file a motion for summary 

judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) 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 

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

 

1 Title II provides redress for discrimination by a “public entity,” a term which does not 

include individuals. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(1), 12132. 

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 32 Filed 10/03/17 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

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 

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

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 32 Filed 10/03/17 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

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 Dkt. Nos. 27 and 28. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2017

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01488-WHO Document 32 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 5