Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06268/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06268-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

S. ADAMIK, ET AL.,

Defendants. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6268 CW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE AND

REFERRING CASE TO PRO SE

PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM

(Docket nos. 3, 4)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Bernard Hamilton, a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), has filed this pro

se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid

the full filing fee. Venue is proper in this district because the

acts complained of occurred at SQSP, located in Marin County, which

is within this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(a), 1391(b).

BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed a prior civil rights

action. See Hamilton v. Adamik, et al., No. C 04-4458 CW (PR). 

Upon initial review, the Court found cognizable Plaintiff's claims

of (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment and (2) retaliation for filing

grievances, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, against SQSP

Physicians Williams and Donald Calvo; SQSP Sergeants Whitson and

Lee; SQSP Correctional Officers Adamik, L. Shaeffer, and J. Nunez;

SQSP Medical Technical Assistant (MTA) Lee, SQSP Acting Warden Jill

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 13
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

A. Brown and SQSP Appeals Coordinator W. Jeppeson.

On February 24, 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's

claims in Case No. C 04-4458 CW (PR), alleging that they were

unexhausted because the pertinent administrative appeals were

initiated prior to the date the complaint was filed but were not

ruled upon at the final level of administrative review until after

Plaintiff filed suit.

In an Order dated August 11, 2006, the Court granted

Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims in Case No. C 04-4458 CW

(PR) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On October 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed the present action

alleging the same allegations as his prior action. He alleges that

he has exhausted all available administrative remedies with respect

to each of his claims. In addition to Defendants Adamik, Whitson,

Nunez, Williams, Calvo, Shaeffer, Jepperson, Brown, R. Lee and T.

Lee, who were named in his prior action, Plaintiff also names the

following as Defendants: SQSP Lieutenant G. Fuller; SQSP Nurse

Barkley; and Chief of Inmate Appeals N. Grannis. Plaintiff seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages.

Plaintiff has also filed a document entitled "Amendment and/or

Supplement to the Complaint" (docket no. 3), which the Court will

construe as a motion to amend the complaint. He moves to add a

claim against the following additional Defendants: SQSP Senior

Accounting Officer Larry Ward; SQSP Business Manager Terri McKay;

and SQSP Acting Warden Robert L. Ayers, for failing to provide

Plaintiff with a certified copy of the trust account statement to

supplement his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in

2004. However, the Court finds that this claim is not cognizable. 

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 13
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

Plaintiff's 602 inmate appeal regarding this claim was reviewed at

the first, second and Director's level, and each found that

Plaintiff did not have a right to receive a certified trust account

statement pursuant to SQSP's court filing process and procedure. 

Instead, the SQSP trust office completes the trust withdrawal forms

and provides attachments, and then forwards the documents to the

SQSP Litigation Coordinator's office. The inmate's counselor then

provides the inmate with a non-certified copy of the trust account

statement. Because there is no established prison procedure for

providing inmates with certified copies of their trust account

statements, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend (docket

no. 3) because he has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief

against the aforementioned Defendants.

Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to refer this action to the

Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program (docket no. 4).

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. 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. Id.

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

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

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 13
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

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). "'[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to

state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.'" Terracom v. Valley National Bank, 49 F.3d 555,

558 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957)). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Claims

A. Deliberate Indifference Claim

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the

Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. A serious medical

need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain." Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). The

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of

a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain

are examples of indications that a prisoner has a serious need for

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 13
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

medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900

F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)). A prison employee is

deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by

failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Because Plaintiff raises the same allegations as he did in his

prior action, the following summary of pertinent facts is taken

from the Court's Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss in

Case No. 04-4458 CW (PR): 

Plaintiff suffers from numerous serious medical

conditions and has been treated by SQSP doctors for over

twenty-three years. He has been treated for angina,

hypertension, diabetes and neuropathy. He also suffers from

obesity. 

 SQSP Staff Physician T. Martin, D.O. issued a medical

chrono in August, 2002 stating that it was medically

necessary for Plaintiff to receive heat-risk relief with ice

or a fan for the length of his stay. Plaintiff states that

he had no problems receiving ice in his cell on East Block

until August 10, 2004. Because Defendant Calvo, SQSP Health

Care Manager, denied renewal of his heat-risk chrono in May,

2004, Plaintiff claims that Defendants repeatedly refused to

provide him with ice even after he received a temporary

heat-risk chrono on August 18, 2004. 

On more than one occasion after Defendants refused to

provide him with ice, Plaintiff claims that he experienced

severe symptoms of heat exhaustion, including nausea,

sweating, dizziness and increased blood pressure. He was

taken to the hospital for emergency treatment twice after

such reactions. Plaintiff filed numerous appeals in

response to these incidents.

Plaintiff alleges that it was medically necessary for

SQSP staff to comply with his heat-risk chronos, and that

Defendants' denial of these accommodations has exacerbated

the effects of the medications prescribed to treat or

alleviate Plaintiff's various medical conditions. 

(Aug. 11, 2006 Order in Case No. 04-4458 CW (PR) at 2-3.)

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 5 of 13
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

for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against

Defendants Fuller, Calvo, Whitson, Adamik, Sergeant Lee, Nunez, MTA

Lee, Shaeffer, Brown, Jeppeson, Grannis and Barkley for failing to

provide the medically prescribed treatment for his condition. 

B. Retaliation Claim

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants refused to honor his

medical chrono for ice and a fan in retaliation for filing prison

grievances. 

Prisoners may not be retaliated against for exercising their

right of access to the courts, Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454,

461 (9th Cir. 1995), which extends to established prison grievance

procedures, Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable

retaliation claim against Defendants Fuller, Calvo, Whitson,

Adamik, Sergeant Lee, Nunez, Williams, MTA Lee, Brown, Jeppeson and

Grannis. 

C. Equal Protection Claim

A plaintiff alleging denial of equal protection under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 based on race or other suspect classification must

plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are

at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent. 

Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th

Cir. 1998). To state a claim for relief, the plaintiff must allege

that the defendant state actor acted at least in part because of

plaintiff's membership in a protected class. Serrano v. Francis,

345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants, with the exception of

Defendant Sergeant Lee, violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 6 of 13
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

protection rights by discriminating against him because he is

black. The Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations of racial

discrimination are conclusory and ambiguous. Thus, Plaintiff has

not stated a cognizable equal protection claim.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's equal protection claim against

Defendants Adamik, Whitson, Nunez, Williams, Calvo, Shweffe,

Jepperson, Brown, MTA Lee, Fuller, Barkley and Grannis is

DISMISSED.

II. Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program

The Northern District of California has established a Pro Se

Prisoner Settlement Program. Certain prisoner civil rights cases

may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for settlement

proceedings. The proceedings will consist of one or more

conferences as determined by Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas. The

conferences shall be conducted at San Quentin State Prison with

Defendant(s) and/or the representative for Defendant(s) attending

by videoconferencing if they so choose.

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff's request for this action to

be referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program (docket no.

4) is GRANTED, and the present case will be REFERRED to Magistrate

Judge Vadas for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se

Prisoner Settlement Program. The proceedings shall take place

within one-hundred twenty (120) days after the date of this Order. 

Magistrate Judge Vadas shall coordinate a time and date for a

settlement proceeding with all interested parties and/or their

representatives and, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of

the settlement proceedings, file with the Court a report regarding

the settlement proceedings.

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 7 of 13
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (docket no. 3)

is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs against Defendants

Fuller, Calvo, Whitson, Adamik, Sergeant Lee, Nunez, MTA Lee,

Shaeffer, Brown, Jeppeson, Grannis and Barkley.

3. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable retaliation claim

against Defendants Fuller, Calvo, Whitson, Adamik, Sergeant Lee,

Nunez, Williams, MTA Lee, Brown, Jeppeson and Grannis. 

4. Plaintiff's equal protection claim Defendants Adamik,

Whitson, Nunez, Williams, Calvo, Shaeffer, Jepperson, Brown, MTA

Lee, Fuller, Barkley and Grannis is DISMISSED.

5. Plaintiff's request for this action to be referred to the

Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program (docket no. 4) is GRANTED. The

Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of the court documents that

are not available electronically, including a copy of this Order,

to Magistrate Judge Vadas in Eureka, California.

6. 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: SQSP Lieutenant

G. Fuller; SQSP Physicians Williams and Donald Calvo; SQSP

Sergeants Whitson and Lee; SQSP Correctional Officers Adamik and J.

Nunez; SQSP Medical Technical Assistant (MTA) Lee; SQSP L.

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 8 of 13
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

Shaeffer; SQSP Acting Warden Jill A. Brown; SQSP Appeals

Coordinator W. Jeppeson; Chief of Inmate Appeals N. Grannis; and

SQSP Nurse Barkley. 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.

7. 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

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 9 of 13
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

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

from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

8. 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

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

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 10 of 13
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

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)

(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.

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 11 of 13
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.06\Hamilton6268.srv&refVADAS.frm 12

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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. This Order terminates Docket nos. 3 and 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/24/07

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 12 of 13
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.06\Hamilton6268.srv&refVADAS.frm 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER ADAMIK et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-06268 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 September 24, 2007, 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.

Bernard Hamilton C-27300

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94964

Dated: September 24, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-06268-CW Document 6 Filed 09/24/07 Page 13 of 13