Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01038/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01038-0/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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Dursma01038_svc.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH DURSMA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

RANDY SID, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-01038 JW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE

REGARDING SUCH MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, filed a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the conditions of his confinement

while incarcerated at Salina Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate order. The Court will conduct

its initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek 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

Case 5:10-cv-01038-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 7
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Dursma01038_svc.wpd 2

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. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff claims that on October 9, 2007, he was placed on “suicide watch” after a

failed suicide attempt. (Compl. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Nurse Leslie told

custody staff that plaintiff should be put on “contraband watch” because he had

swallowed pieces of a manila envelope in his suicide attempt. (Id.) As required under

“contraband watch,” plaintiff was placed in leg irons and wait restraints for six days, i.e.,

from October 10, 2007, through October 16, 2007. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the waist

restraints are connected by a padlock located at the center of his lower back, precisely at

the spot where he had reconstructive spinal surgery some thirteen months earlier. (Id. at

3A.) Plaintiff claims that he was in constant and severe pain throughout the six days that

he was in restraints. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that at various times during the six days, Xrays were ordered by defendant Dr. Randy Sid, at the request of unidentified correctional

staff, to locate the parts of the manila envelopes that plaintiff had swallowed. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that each time he saw defendant Sid, he complaint to him of the severe

pain due to the restraints. Plaintiff claims that he also complained of severe pain

repeatedly to the correctional officers who were observing him, but that no one acted to

alleviate his suffering. (Id. at 3B.) Due to the restraints, plaintiff was forced to sleep on

his sides with his arms chained to his sides, which caused constant and severe pain in his

shoulders. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered pain in his neck and shoulder ever

since the six days he was kept in restraints in October 2007.

Case 5:10-cv-01038-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 7
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Dursma01038_svc.wpd 3

On January 27, 2009, after complaining of pain in his neck and left shoulder,

plaintiff was given a CT scan. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the CT scan showed

“degenerative changes of the left uncinate process at C5-C6, creating marked left

foraminal narrowing... [which] may contribute to left shoulder pain.” (Id. at 3C; Ex. G.) 

Plaintiff alleges that the pain in his neck and shoulder was caused by being left in leg

irons and waist restraints for six days in October 2007, during which time he was forced

to sleep on his sides with his arms chained to his sides. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the

restraints were only used “as a means to punish him as medical staff told custody staff

that plaintiff cut himself as a means to get to an outside hospital.” (Id.) Liberally

construed, plaintiff’s claim is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v.

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). 

Plaintiff alleges that approximately 20 “John Doe” correctional officers are

responsible for failing to alleviate his suffering during the six days he was in restraints. 

(Compl. 3.) Although the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored in the

Ninth Circuit, see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); Wiltsie v. Cal.

Dep’t of Corrections, 406 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1968), situations may arise where the

identify of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint. In such

circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify

the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover their

identifies or that the complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See Gillespie, 629

F.2d at 642; Velasquze v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180 (N. D. Cal. 1986). 

Accordingly, the 20 John Doe defendants are DISMISSED from this action. If through

discovery plaintiff is able to identify the unknown defendants, he may then motion the

Court for leave to amend to name the intended defendants and to issue summons upon

them. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642; Barsten v. Dep’t of the Interior, 896 F.2d 422, 423-

24 (9th Cir. 1990).

///

Case 5:10-cv-01038-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 7
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Dursma01038_svc.wpd 4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The 20 “John Doe” defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice from this 

action for the reasons stated above. 

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, all attachments

thereto, and a copy of this order upon defendants Dr. Randy Sid and Registered Nurse

Leslie at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

3. No later than sixty (60) 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 amended 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 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 the defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

Case 5:10-cv-01038-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 7
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

 1 The 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.

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Dursma01038_svc.wpd 5

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 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

Case 5:10-cv-01038-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 5 of 7
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.10\Dursma01038_svc.wpd 6

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. 

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 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or

Local Rule 16-1 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).

10. 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.

DATED: 

 JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

May 24, 2010 

Case 5:10-cv-01038-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH LANE DURSMA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RANDY SID, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-01038 JW 

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 , 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.

Joseph Dursma P 12992

Mule Creek State Prison

P. O. Box 409099

Ione, CA 95640

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

5/27/20110 5/27/2010 /s/

Case 5:10-cv-01038-EJD Document 6 Filed 05/27/10 Page 7 of 7