Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06251/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06251-1/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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong251srv 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW E. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-6251 JF (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL

DISMISSAL AND OF

SERVICE; 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 Correctional Training Facility personnel. 

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. 

The Court will dismiss certain claims and order service of the cognizable claims on the

remaining Defendants. 

DISCUSSION

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

Case 5:07-cv-06251-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong251srv 2

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).

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations,

liberally construed, state cognizable claims that Defendants Chudy, Grewal, Morris and

Ulanday violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to

his serious medical needs. 

Plaintiff also names the CTF Warden, B. Curry, as a defendant, but makes no

allegations against him. The simple fact that he is the Warden does not suffice to plead a

§ 1983 claim, however, because only those individual officials who actually engage in

unlawful conduct can be held liable. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

690 (1978) (rejecting concept of respondeat superior liability in § 1983 context and

requiring individual liability for constitutional violation); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding personal participation required for finding of supervisoral

liability based on alleged constitutional violations). Accordingly, the claims against

Defendant Curry will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief against

him. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. All claims against Defendant B. Curry are DISMISSED. 

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 the named Defendants: Dr. J. Chudy,

Case 5:07-cv-06251-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 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

 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.

Partial Dismissal Order; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong251srv 3

Dr. I. Grewal, Dr. Ulanday, and Nurse I. Grewal at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the

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

3. No later than ninety (90) 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

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

Case 5:07-cv-06251-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong251srv 4

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 5:07-cv-06251-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 Page 4 of 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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong251srv 5

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

5/8/08

Case 5:07-cv-06251-JF Document 8 Filed 05/13/08 Page 5 of 5