Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00167/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00167-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\sansen.srv.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE SANSEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER FOLENA, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0167 MJJ (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE

MOTION OR NOTICE THAT SUCH

MOTION IS NOT WARRANTED

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Alameda County Jail, filed this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five officers of the Pittsburg Police Department. The complaint

was dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff filed a timely amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

A. 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. 

See 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. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Case 4:07-cv-00167-PJH Document 8 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 5
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\sansen.srv.wpd 2

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleged in the original complaint that he “was beaten severely by all the

officers involved, sent to the hospital.” As he made no more specific allegation, the

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend to describe the amount of force used and the

context in which it was used. In addition, plaintiff was directed to “set forth specific facts as

to each individual defendant's" role in depriving plaintiff of his protected rights. See Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that liability may be imposed only if

plaintiff can allege and show that the defendant actually and proximately caused the

deprivation of a federally protected right). 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Officers Stephens,

Anderson and Folena hit him with fists and a night stick during the course of his arrest, and

after he was lying on the ground. Plaintiff further alleges he received extensive injuries from

their use of force, including a concussion, a broken nose, black eyes, abrasions and bruises. 

The Court finds the amended complaint has cured the deficiencies in his complaint, and,

when liberally construed, the amended complaint states a cognizable claim for the violation

of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force during an arrest,

see Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1989), as to defendants Stephens, Anderson

and Folena. Plaintiff names two other defendants, Officers Goldman and Terry, but he

makes no allegations against them; he does not allege any actions taken by them, any use of

force by them, or even that they were present and failed to prevent the use of excessive force

by the other officers. Consequently, plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies in his original

complaint with respect to defendants Goldman and Terry, and the claims against them will be

dismissed.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

Case 4:07-cv-00167-PJH Document 8 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 5
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\sansen.srv.wpd 3

1. The claims against defendants Goldman and Terry are DISMISSED. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Officer Stephens, Officer Anderson and

Officer Folena at the Pittsburg Police Department in Pittsburg, California. The Clerk

shall also mail courtesy copies of the amended complaint and this order to the Office of the

City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg, California. 

3. No later than ninet (90) 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

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

& n.4 (9th Cir. 2003). 

b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual

documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 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 under

Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 &

n.4 (9th Cir. 2003):

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss 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

Case 4:07-cv-00167-PJH Document 8 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 5
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\sansen.srv.wpd 4

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 to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be

dismissed and there will be no trial.

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 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

Case 4:07-cv-00167-PJH Document 8 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 5
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\CR.07\sansen.srv.wpd 5

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. Any motion for an extension of time must be accompanied by a showing of good

cause for the extension requested, and must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2007

_________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00167-PJH Document 8 Filed 09/20/07 Page 5 of 5