Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05786/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05786-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS M. JOHN-CHARLES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

E. ABANICO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05786 CW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff Curtis M. John-Charles, a state prisoner, has filed

the present pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging a constitutional rights violation while incarcerated at

the Correctional Training Facility (CTF). His motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. 

Venue is proper in this district because the events giving

rise to the action occurred at CTF, which is located in this

district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1371(b).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that various CTF prison officials violated

his constitutional rights from August 18, 2006 through August 29,

2007. Plaintiff's complaint is thirty pages long and includes

fifty-five paragraphs, in which he describes multiple incidents

that occurred during this time frame. Plaintiff alleges that he

has exhausted his administrative remedies as to his claims. He

submitted his 602 inmate appeal at the informal level on September

1, 2006, and he received a decision at the Director's level of

review on June 11, 2007. (Compl. at 2.) 

The complaint includes numerous harassment, deprivation of

property and supervisory liability claims which are either

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

conclusory or fail to state a claim for relief. The Court

addresses in detail only the allegations that relate to:

(1) alleged acts of sexual assault by Defendant CTF Correctional

Officer E. Abanico and the resulting acts of retaliation; (2) an

alleged act of sexual assault by Defendant CTF Correctional Officer

L. Rayasa; and (3) alleged use of excessive force by Defendant

Abanico.

Plaintiff claims that he was sexually abused by Defendant

Abanico, who touched him in a sexually explicit manner on August

18, 2006 when he started to "grab and massage Plaintiff's penis and

scrotum" while doing a "pat down." (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also

claims that because they did not stop Defendant Abanico during the

August 18, 2060 incident, Defendants CTF Sergeant A. Padilla and

CTF Correctional Officer K. Lynch are liable for "aiding and

abetting Defendant Abanico in a sexual assault perpetrated against

the Plaintiff." (Id. at 29.)

Plaintiff states that he filed a 602 appeal against Defendants

Abanico, Padilla and Lynch relating to the alleged "sexual assault

perpetrated against Plaintiff." (Id. at 6.) He also claims that

he sent letters to Defendants’ Ombudsman Matthew Thomas, Warden Ben

Curry, Director James Tilton and Secretary A.P. Kane regarding the

alleged sexual assault. 

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants Abanico, Padilla and

Lynch acted in retaliation because they were "aware of the many

successful inmate appeals that the Plaintiff had litigated against

staff." (Id. at 6-7.)

 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Padilla and Abanico

conducted another search on September 6, 2006 in retaliation for

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

the initial sexual assault complaint stemming from the August 18,

2006 incident. Defendant Abanico "grabbed and massage[d]

Plaintiff's penis and scrotum as he proceeded to do his pat down." 

(Id. at 8.) Again, Plaintiff claims Defendant Padilla did nothing

to stop Defendant Abanico. (Id.) Plaintiff again contacted

Defendants Thomas, Curry, Tilton and Kane regarding this alleged

second incident of sexual assault. Plaintiff also adds that

Defendants CTF Appeals Coordinators P. G. Dennis and A. Aboytes

"were aware of the facts of Plaintiff's sexual assault complaint

through the screening process . . . ." (Id. at 9.)

On January 25, 2007, Plaintiff refused to allow Defendant

Abanico to search him. Defendant CTF Correctional Officer J. Nabor

searched Plaintiff, and Defendant Abanico searched Plaintiff's

legal property. Plaintiff alleges that, in the process of

searching his property, Defendant Abanico intentionally broke

Plaintiff's eyeglasses to harass him. 

On February 15, 2007, Plaintiff was scheduled for a program

review with the Unit Classification Committee (UCC) in order "to

get a reduction in his custody level; as well as, a transfer to

alleviate all of the retaliatory reactions, and harassment that he

was experiencing whenever he was in the main corridor." (Id. at

15.) Prior to his program review, Plaintiff had to undergo a

general search. He claims that Defendant Nabor called Defendant

Abanico to do the search, but Plaintiff refused to allow Defendant

Abanico to conduct the search. Defendant Nabor searched Plaintiff

and found documents that Plaintiff claims were exhibits for his

hearing. When Defendants Nabor and Abanico tried to confiscate his

exhibits, Plaintiff turned to Defendants Correctional Officers G.

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Lavelle and K. Gomez for assistance but they ignored his request. 

Plaintiff claims Defendants Lavelle and Gomez "willfully and

deliberately failed to correct or prevent the retaliatory conduct

of Defendants Abanico and Nabor." (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff then

asked Defendant CTF Captain I. Guerra for her assistance, and she

offered to make a copy of Plaintiff's exhibits. His program review

was conducted by Defendant Guerra as well as CTF Correctional

Counselors B. Villelobos and D. J. Carnazzo. Plaintiff claims he

attempted to bring to their attention "the on-going problems of

harassment by various officers, along with the sexual assaults" and

in support of his requests for reduction in custody and a transfer,

he "submitted documents which chronicled these events . . . ." 

(Id. at 17-18.) Defendants Guerra and Carnazzo informed Plaintiff

that they had already denied his request "in a separate 602 (Log

num: CTF-S-07-00306) that was at the third level of Review." (Id.

at 18.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants Guerra and Carnazzo 

were already biased against Plaintiff for him having

successfully fil[ed] an inmate appeal . . . and other

appeals naming within them each of these defendants; all

of whom were aware of Plaintiffs' [sic] on-going

situation with Defendant Abanico, and the constant

harassment that they (themselves) had witnessed, and

willfully and deliberately failed to correct or prevent

the retaliatory conduct of defendant Abanico.

(Id. at 19.) He further claims that Defendants Guerra and Carnazzo

"used their administrative position to set an atmosphere of

disrespect, and reprisal throughout their subordinates." (Id.)

On February 21, 2007, Plaintiff mailed letters with supporting

documents to Senators Machado and Ortiz as well as to Defendants

Curry, Kane and Tilton regarding the constant harassment, reprisal,

and unwarranted incidents that Plaintiff had been subjected to

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 4 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

after filing his sexual assault complaint against Defendant

Abanico. (Id. at 20.)

On July 20, 2007, Plaintiff claims, he was stopped and

searched by Defendants Correctional Officers J. De La Cruz and R.

Balicata. Plaintiff claims that, shortly afterwards, he was

stopped by Defendant Abanico, who directed Defendant Rayasa to

search Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Rayasa "repeatly

[sic] grabbed hold of Plaintiff's penis and scrotum in a very

inappropriate manner, sexually assaulting Plaintiff as Defendant

Abanico looked on approvingly." (Id. at 24.) Plaintiff claims

that Defendants Abanico, De La Cruz and Balicata did nothing to

stop Defendant Rayasa.

On August 29, 2007, Plaintiff was stopped by Defendant

Abanico, who told Plaintiff to "get up against the wall." (Id. at

25.) However, Plaintiff refused to allow Defendant Abanico to

search him. Plaintiff requested Defendant Correctional Officer N.

Garnett to search him instead, but she refused. Plaintiff demanded

to speak with a sergeant and "began to raise his voice so that

everybody returning from chow could hear him." (Id. at 26.) One

of the officers activated a personal alarm, and Defendant Abanico

attempted to put restraints on Plaintiff while Defendant Garnett

grabbed Plaintiff's left hand. Plaintiff claims that he "was not

offering any resistence to these officers abuse." (Id. at 27.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Abanico began "fumbling with the

cuffs on Plaintiff's right waist, became so frustrated that he

punched the Plaintiff in his right side." (Id.) Defendant Abanico

"finally got the cuffs on, and Plaintiff was placed in a waiting

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 5 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

cage for almost two (2) hours before he was released back to his

unit." (Id.)

DISCUSSION

I. 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 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). 

II. Plaintiff's Claims 

A. Claims Stemming from Alleged Sexual Assaults by

Defendants Abanico and Rayasa

1. Eighth Amendment Claims

Plaintiff claims that on August 18, 2006 and September 6,

2006, Defendant Abanico conducted random non-emergency related

clothed body searches on Plaintiff. Defendant Abanico touched him

in an inappropriate manner by grabbing his penis and massaging his

genitals. He alleges Defendants Padilla and Lynch are liable for

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 6 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

failing to intervene. In addition, Plaintiff argues that because

Defendants Thomas, Curry, Tilton and Kane knew of the alleged

incident and are Defendant Abanico's supervisors, they are liable

for his conduct on the basis of supervisory liability. Plaintiff

also alleges an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Rayasa,

stemming from a similar incident of alleged sexual assault on July

20, 2007. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Abanico, De La Cruz and

Balicata are liable for failing to intervene, and Defendant CTF

Sergeant G. Elliot is liable for the conduct of his subordinate,

Defendant Rayasa, on the basis of supervisory liability because he

knew of the alleged incident.

Sexual assault, coercion and harassment certainly may violate

contemporary standards of decency and cause physical and

psychological harm. See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525-31

(9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). However, not every malevolent touch by

a prison guard or official gives rise to an Eighth Amendment

violation -- the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional

recognition de minimis uses of force. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503

U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992); Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076 (8th

Cir. 1998) (no Eighth Amendment violation where employees briefly

touched inmate's buttocks with apparent intent to embarrass him). 

A prisoner therefore must establish that the alleged sexual

harassment was egregious, pervasive and/or widespread in order to

state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Jordan, 986

F.2d at 1525-31 (prison policy requiring male guards to conduct

body searches on female prisoners); Watson v. Jones, 980 F.2d 1165,

1165-66 (8th Cir. 1992) (correctional officer sexually harassed two

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 7 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

8

inmates on almost daily basis for two months by conducting

deliberate examination of genitalia and anus). 

Here, according to Plaintiff, Defendants Abanico and Rayasa

handled Plaintiff's penis and genitals during clothed body

searches. Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable

claim that Defendants Abanico and Rayasa violated his Eighth

Amendment rights. However, Plaintiff has failed to state

cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Padilla,

Lynch, De La Cruz and Balicata for their failure to intervene, or

cognizable supervisory liability claims against Defendants Thomas,

Curry, Tilton, Kane and Elliot. Therefore, these claims are

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief.

2. Retaliation Claims

Plaintiff claims his First Amendment rights were violated by

Defendant Abanico, who retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a

complaint relating to the alleged sexual assaults. Plaintiff also

alleges retaliation claims against Defendants Guerra and Carnazzo

for denying his request to be transferred and failing to correct or

prevent the retaliatory conduct of Defendant Abanico, in

retaliation for Plaintiff filing past grievances against them.

Retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a

constitutional right is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if

the act, when taken for different reasons, would have been proper. 

See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84

(1977). "Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) an

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 8 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

that such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,

567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, a prisoner suing prison

officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege he was

retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and

that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate penological

goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline. See

Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). The prisoner

also must allege the defendants' actions caused him some injury. 

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000).

Here, Plaintiff's complaint alleges a cognizable claim that

Defendant Abanico retaliated against him for filing a complaint

relating to the sexual assault incidents. However, Plaintiff's

conclusory retaliation claims against Defendants Guerra and

Carnazzo fail to allege that they retaliated against him for filing

his grievances. Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable

retaliation claim against Defendant Abanico. His retaliation

claims against Defendants Guerra and Carnazzo are DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim.

B. Claims Stemming from Alleged Use of Excessive Force by

Defendant Abanico

The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's claim that he was

roughly handled and punched by Defendant Abanico while being

restrained on August 29, 2007 to allege that he was subject to

excessive force. 

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions

under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 9 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). 

"'After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction

of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by

the Eighth Amendment." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319

(1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be,

objectively, sufficiently serious, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298

(1991)), and (2) the prison official must possess a sufficiently

culpable state of mind, i.e., the offending conduct must be wanton,

see id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d

1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993).

Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial

inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to

maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to

cause harm. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6-7; Whitley, 475 U.S. at

320-21. As mentioned above, every malevolent touch by a prison

guard does not give rise to a federal cause of action; the Eighth

Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment necessarily

excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of

physical force. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10. 

Here, Plaintiff's alleged rough handling by Defendant Abanico

was de minimis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim

against Defendant Abanico stemming from the August 29, 2007

incident is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief.

//

//

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 10 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

11

C. Harassment, Deprivation of Property and Supervisory 

Liability Claims

A pattern of maliciously motivated conduct or calculated

harassment unrelated to prison needs may constitute cruel and

unusual punishment, even if isolated incidents of such conduct

would not violate a prisoner's rights. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468

U.S. 517, 528-30 (1984). Plaintiff, however, has not alleged

conduct amounting to a deliberate, malicious campaign of

harassment. His complaints about alleged harassment by prison

officials and deprivation of property (i.e., his radio and black

tennis shoes) apparently involved only isolated incidents. 

Furthermore, when a prisoner suffers a property loss that is random

and unauthorized his remedy lies with the state, because neither

the negligent nor intentional deprivation of property states a due

process claim under § 1983 under such circumstances. See Parratt

v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee negligently

lost prisoner's hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds,

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson, 468 U.S.

at 533 (intentional destruction of inmate's property). 

The alleged incidents of harassment in Plaintiff's complaint

were not serious enough cumulatively to amount to a pattern of

harassment. Plaintiff's complaint cites several annoyances by

prison officials, but does not allege that he has been targeted for

harassment by prison officials. Accordingly, all remaining claims

relating to harassment and deprivation of property as well as all

related supervisory liability claims are DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim for relief. 

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 11 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

12

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim,

stemming from the alleged acts of sexual assault, against Defendant

Abanico and Rayasa. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against

Defendants Padilla, Lynch, De La Cruz and Balicata for their

failure to intervene, as well as his supervisory liability claims

against Defendants Thomas, Curry, Tilton, Kane and Elliot are

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief.

2. The Court finds COGNIZABLE Plaintiff's retaliation claim

against Defendant Abanico. Plaintiff's retaliation claims against

Defendants Guerra and Carnazzo are DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim.

3. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant

Abanico stemming from the alleged use of excessive force on August

29, 2007 is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief.

4. All remaining claims of harassment and deprivation of

property as well as the related supervisory liability claims are

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief.

5. 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 and all attachments

thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to Defendants CTF

Correctional Officers E. Abanico and L. Rayasa at CTF. The Clerk

of the Court shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of

this Order to the State Attorney General's Office in San Francisco. 

Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to

Plaintiff.

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 12 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

13

6. 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 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 be 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 an answer before

sixty (60) days from the date 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. 

7. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following briefing

schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date their

answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment

or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by

adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 13 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If Defendants are of the

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they

shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment

motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly

served on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later

than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is

filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should

be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion:

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

defendant's 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 the

defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will

be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (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)

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 14 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

15

(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 because he bears the

burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared

to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files

his opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. Such evidence

may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to

the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn

declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall

do so no later than thirty (30) days after the date Plaintiff's

opposition is filed.

d. 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.

8. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant

to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

9. All communications by 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.

10. 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

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 15 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\John-Charles5786.service.wpd 16

11. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/1/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 16 of 17
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\John-Charles5786.service.wpd 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN-CHARLES et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABANICO et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-05786 CW 

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 February 1, 2010, 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.

Curtis M. John-Charles T-56703

Fac. 4-21-F-2up

CSP-Vacaville

2100 Peabody Road

P.O. Box 4000

Vacaville, CA 95696-4000

Dated: February 1, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-05786-CW Document 10 Filed 02/01/10 Page 17 of 17