Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03753-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RONALD F. MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. L. MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03753-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE;

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 

TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff Ronald Martinez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this federal civil 

rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that his jailors at Salinas Valley State 

Prison violated his First Amendment rights. His complaint containing these allegations is 

now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Having concluded that the complaint (Docket No. 1) 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 April 6, 2015, unless an extension is granted. 

The Court further directs that defendants are to adhere to the notice provisions detailed in 

Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order. 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 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

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 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 

(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 

 Plaintiff Martinez alleges that W.L. Muniz, Warden of Salinas Valley, C. Martella, 

a staff services analyst at Salinas Valley, E. Medina, an appeals coordinator at Salinas 

Valley, S. Hatton, an associate warden at Salinas Valley, and C. Barela, a correctional 

counselor at Salinas Valley, retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment 

rights when they wrongly screened out (rejected at an early stage) or otherwise 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 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

impermissibly interfered with the processing of his prison grievances. When liberally 

construed, these allegations state claims under section 1983 and shall proceed. 

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. 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon W.L. Muniz, 

Warden of Salinas Valley; C. Martella, a staff services analyst at Salinas Valley; 

E. Medina, an appeals coordinator at Salinas Valley; S. Hatton, an associate warden at 

Salinas Valley; and C. Barela, a correctional counselor at Salinas Valley. The Clerk shall 

also mail courtesy copies of the operative complaint and this order to the California 

Attorney General’s Office. 

 2. 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 claims 

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). 

 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. 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 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

 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 

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 

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 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

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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03753-HSG Document 4 Filed 01/07/15 Page 5 of 5