Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03167/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03167-0/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

LARRY JAMES BOWERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03167-JSC 

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 

against employees at San Quentin State Prison for providing inadequate medical care.1 His 

application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained 

below, the complaint is ordered served upon Defendants. 

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

§ 1915A(b). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) 

Case 5:15-cv-03167-RMW Document 3 Filed 08/21/15 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

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 

state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to 

provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally 

construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that since December of 2014, he has been prescribed medication at the 

prison that makes him vomit and dizzy, and that the daily vomiting caused his throat to become 

“extremely sore.” (Compl. at 3.) According to Plaintiff, he has informed Defendants Nurse Han, 

Dr. David, and Dr. Tootell about this problem, but they have not changed his medication or 

allowed him to see a specialist. When liberally construed, these allegations are sufficient to state a 

cognizable claim against Han, David, and Tootell for being deliberately indifferent to his serious 

medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 

and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of the complaint with attachments and a copy of this order 

on Defendants Dr. David, R.N. Han, and Chief Medical Executive Dr. E. Tootell, at San 

Quentin State Prison. 

The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent 

Case 5:15-cv-03167-RMW Document 3 Filed 08/21/15 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

form, the complaint with all attachments and a copy of this order, to the California Attorney 

General’s Office. 

2. Defendants shall each complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent 

form within the deadline provided on the form. 

3. Defendants shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

4. To expedite the resolution of this case:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is issued, 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, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 

events at issue. 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. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendants shall also serve, on a 

separate paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the 

Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. Plaintiff 

must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him pursuant 

to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is 

filed. 

e. 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. 

5. 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.

Case 5:15-cv-03167-RMW Document 3 Filed 08/21/15 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

6. 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) is required before the 

parties may conduct discovery.

7. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also 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). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a 

showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03167-RMW Document 3 Filed 08/21/15 Page 4 of 4