Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06035/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06035-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

WILLIE S. MCKINNON,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. BINKELE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-06035 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

CLERK 

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). 

After an initial screening, the Court found the complaint stated a cognizable claim under 

the Fourth Amendment based on an unjustified strip search. (Docket No. 7 at 2.) Plaintiff 

was granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt to allege physical 

injury in order to proceed with his claim for mental and emotional injury, and to state 

sufficient facts to state a claim against Defendant R. Binkele, Sgt. E. Macay, and Officer S. 

Wong. (Id. at 3-4.) In the alternative, Plaintiff was to file notice that he wishes to proceed 

solely on the Fourth Amendment claim and have all the other claims and Defendants 

stricken from the complaint. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff has filed such a notice. (Docket No. 9.) 

Case 5:18-cv-06035-EJD Document 10 Filed 02/25/19 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 Californi

a

Accordingly, this action shall proceed solely on the Fourth Amendment claim against 

Defendants A. Lugue and C. Hernandez. 

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 

In the initial screening order, the Court found the following claim cognizable: 

Plaintiff claims that on November 30, 2017, he was directed by 

Defendant Officer Lugue to speak with a potential cell mate. (Compl. at 3.) 

Plaintiff states that the inmate told him that he did not want to move with 

Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that before he was returned to his cell, 

Defendants Lugue and Hernandez ordered him into a shower and without 

closing the door, ordered him to strip-down “without cause in a disrespectful 

and unprofessional manner” and “to lift his nut sack so he could see what 

was under them.” (Id.) When Plaintiff refused to do so, Defendant 

Hernandez stated to Defendant Lugue that “all black men don’t have big 

dicks because you sure not big [sic].” (Id.) Then Plaintiff requested to talk to 

the Sergeant and was escorted back to his cell. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks damages 

for suffering “shame, humiliation, degradation, emotional distress, 

embarrassment, mental distress and other injuries” due to Defendants’ 

Case 5:18-cv-06035-EJD Document 10 Filed 02/25/19 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 Californi

a

“willful, intentional, malicious, wanton, and despicable and conscious 

disregard” of his rights. (Id.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a claim 

under the Fourth Amendment based on the unjustified strip search that was 

conducted “without cause.” See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 561 (1979); 

Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 700 (9th Cir. 1997). 

 

(Docket No. 7 at 2.) This action shall proceed based on the above cognizable claim. In 

accordance with Plaintiff’s wishes, all other claims and Defendants shall be stricken from 

the complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

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

1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for 

Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy 

of the complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants 

Correctional Officers A. Lugue and C. Hernandez at Salinas Valley State Prison (P.O. 

Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960-1020). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to 

Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall terminate all other Defendants, i.e., R. Binkele, E. Macay, and S. 

Wong, from this action as all the claims against them have been stricken from the 

complaint. 

 2. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the 

summons and the amended complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being 

notified of this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the 

summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good 

cause shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is waived, this 

action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that the waiver is filed, 

except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file 

Case 5:18-cv-06035-EJD Document 10 Filed 02/25/19 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 Californi

a

an answer before sixty (60) days from the day on which the request for waiver was sent. 

(This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons 

is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver 

form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of 

service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but 

before Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days 

from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date 

the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

 3. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 

Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 

respect to the claims in the amended complaint found to be cognizable above. 

 a. 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. 

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

Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate 

warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See 

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 

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

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 

motion is filed. 

 Plaintiff is also 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 

Case 5:18-cv-06035-EJD Document 10 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 5

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW

1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI&DOLIRUQLD

HOHPHQWRIKLVFODLP3ODLQWLIILVFDXWLRQHGWKDWIDLOXUHWRILOHDQRSSRVLWLRQWR

'HIHQGDQWV¶PRWLRQIRUVXPPDU\MXGJPHQWPD\EHGHHPHGWREHDFRQVHQWE\3ODLQWLIIWR

WKHJUDQWLQJRIWKHPRWLRQDQGJUDQWLQJRIMXGJPHQWDJDLQVW3ODLQWLIIZLWKRXWDWULDO6HH

*KD]DOLY0RUDQ)G±WK&LUSHUFXULDP%U\GJHVY/HZLV

)GWK&LU

  'HIHQGDQWVVKDOOILOHDUHSO\EULHIQRODWHUWKDQfourteen (14) daysDIWHU

3ODLQWLII¶VRSSRVLWLRQLVILOHG

  7KHPRWLRQVKDOOEHGHHPHGVXEPLWWHGDVRIWKHGDWHWKHUHSO\EULHILVGXH

1RKHDULQJZLOOEHKHOGRQWKHPRWLRQXQOHVVWKH&RXUWVRRUGHUVDWDODWHUGDWH

  $OOFRPPXQLFDWLRQVE\WKH3ODLQWLIIZLWKWKH&RXUWPXVWEHVHUYHGRQ

'HIHQGDQWVRU'HIHQGDQWV¶FRXQVHORQFHFRXQVHOKDVEHHQGHVLJQDWHGE\PDLOLQJDWUXH

FRS\RIWKHGRFXPHQWWR'HIHQGDQWVRU'HIHQGDQWV¶FRXQVHO

  'LVFRYHU\PD\EHWDNHQLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO

3URFHGXUH1RIXUWKHUFRXUWRUGHUXQGHU)HGHUDO5XOHRI&LYLO3URFHGXUHDRU/RFDO

5XOHLVUHTXLUHGEHIRUHWKHSDUWLHVPD\FRQGXFWGLVFRYHU\

  ,WLV3ODLQWLII¶VUHVSRQVLELOLW\WRSURVHFXWHWKLVFDVH3ODLQWLIIPXVWNHHSWKH

FRXUWLQIRUPHGRIDQ\FKDQJHRIDGGUHVVDQGPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKHFRXUW¶VRUGHUVLQD

WLPHO\IDVKLRQ)DLOXUHWRGRVRPD\UHVXOWLQWKHGLVPLVVDORIWKLVDFWLRQIRUIDLOXUHWR

SURVHFXWHSXUVXDQWWR)HGHUDO5XOHRI&LYLO3URFHGXUHE

  ([WHQVLRQVRIWLPHPXVWEHILOHGQRODWHUWKDQWKHGHDGOLQHVRXJKWWREH

H[WHQGHGDQGPXVWEHDFFRPSDQLHGE\DVKRZLQJRIJRRGFDXVH

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________  ________________________ 

(':$5'-'$9,/$

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW-XGJH 

2UGHURI6HUYLFH

3526(?(-'?&5?0F.LQQRQBVYF

2/25/2019

Case 5:18-cv-06035-EJD Document 10 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 5