Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05427/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05427-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

STEVEN ERIC GOULD,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. LUNA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05427-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF PARTIAL SERVICE AND 

PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at the Correctional 

Training Facility (“CTF”), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On 

October 31, 2018, the Court reviewed the complaint and found that, liberally construed, it stated 

cognizable Fourth Amendment claims against CTF correctional officers Vergara and A. Luna and 

Monterey County deputy sheriff T. Rodriguez. The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s 

claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Court dismissed 

with leave to amend plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment, supervisory liability, and municipal liability 

claims. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint which the Court now reviews pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A.

As with the original complaint, the amended complaint, liberally construed, states a 

cognizable Fourth Amendment claim based on plaintiff’s allegations that Vergara, Luna, and 

Rodriguez took a DNA sample from plaintiff’s mouth without plaintiff’s consent, without 

probable cause, and without a warrant or court order. The amended complaint fails to cure the 

deficiencies identified in the Court’s October 31, 2018 order relating to plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment, supervisory liability, and municipal liability claims. Accordingly, these claims are 

DISMISSED. Further leave to amend will not be granted because plaintiff has already been given 

an opportunity to amend, and it appears further amendment would be futile. 

Case 4:18-cv-05427-HSG Document 15 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 4
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

To move this action toward resolution, the Court now orders:

1. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 14), a copy of the Court’s October 

31, 2018 screening order (Dkt. No. 13), and a copy of this order upon correctional officers 

Vergara and A. Luna at the Correctional Training Facility and upon T. Rodriguez at the

Monterey County Sheriff’s Department. 

The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the amended complaint, the October 31, 2018 

screening order, and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office and to the Office of the 

County Counsel, County of Monterey.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants must file 

and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion for summary 

judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and 

adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 

F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Cir. 1998) must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 

If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, 

defendants must so inform the Court prior to the date the motion is due. 

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the Court and served upon defendants no later than 28 days from the date the 

motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 

provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the 

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

 

1

 If defendants assert that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as 

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendants must raise such argument in a motion for summary 

judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014)

(en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that 

failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 

should be raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). 

Case 4:18-cv-05427-HSG Document 15 Filed 01/25/19 Page 2 of 4
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

hearing will be held on the motion. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that 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) (en banc) (App. A).

(The Rand notice above does not excuse defendants’ obligation to serve said notice again 

concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

4. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants’

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponents. Until defendants’

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to 

defendants, but once defendants are represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 

counsel rather than directly to defendants. 

5. 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 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the 

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 

Case 4:18-cv-05427-HSG Document 15 Filed 01/25/19 Page 3 of 4
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

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). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

7. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 

to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

9. The Clerk shall terminate Craig Koenig and Steve Bernal as defendants from the 

docket in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/25/2019

Case 4:18-cv-05427-HSG Document 15 Filed 01/25/19 Page 4 of 4