Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-01880/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-01880-1/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

EUREKA DIVISON

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-1880-NJV (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

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

The court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend on July 11, 2016. (Doc. 7.) 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 21, 2016. (Doc. 8.)

DISCUSSION

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 dismiss any claims 

which 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). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

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 

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 9 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 5
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

upon which it rests.’”” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order 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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United 

States Supreme Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: 

“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by 

factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Legal Claims 

Plaintiff, a male, presents an equal protection violation based on the differing treatment of 

women at female institutions.

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall 

'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is essentially a 

direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne 

Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)); 

Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2005) (evidence of different 

treatment of unlike groups does not support an equal protection claim). Classifications such as 

those based on gender, are “subject to somewhat heightened review” and “will survive equal 

protection scrutiny to the extent they are substantially related to a legitimate state interest.” Id. at 

441. 

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 9 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff argues that he is denied certain clothing, foods, drinks, objects, and appliances 

from vendors that female inmates with a similar classification status at other prisons can purchase. 

He contends that the denial of certain items from similarly situated individuals is unconstitutional. 

This is sufficient to proceed at the screening stage. See Gonzalez v. Mullen, 2013 WL 1333560 

(N.D. Cal. March 29, 2013) 

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, copies of the amended complaint with attachments and copies of this 

order on defendants: Scott Kernan, Secretary of CDCR and Jeffrey Beard, former Secretary of 

CDCR.

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

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, 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 the plaintiff.

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve, on a 

separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-

954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003). 

See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and Wyatt notices must be 

given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, 

not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

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

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served 

upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING," which is 

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 9 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 5
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

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

and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust 

his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take 

note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)," which is provided

to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. If defendants wishes to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen 

days after the opposition is served upon them. 

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. 

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 9 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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, your case will be 

dismissed and there will be no trial. 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking 

to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did 

exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations 

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents 

accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other 

sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it is granted, 

your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 1:16-cv-01880-NJV Document 9 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 5