Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00765/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00765-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVARO R. HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

ELOY MEDINA, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0765 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Facility ("RJD"), has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his federal rights while incarcerated

at Calipatria State Prison ("CAL") and Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP"). 

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). 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). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

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

Case 3:07-cv-00765-CRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 6
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

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).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on May 19, 2000, while incarcerated at CAL, he was

severely beaten up by correctional officers Rodriguez and Garnulo. And since

being transferred to SVSP, Drs. Lee and Bowman refuse to provide him with

adequate treatment for the severe and chronic pain to his head, back and neck he

still suffers from the CAL beating.

Plaintiff's allegations against Rodriguez and Garnulo are dismissed

without prejudice to bringing in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of California, where venue properly lies. See 28 USC §§ 84(d), 1391(b). 

But liberally construed, his allegations against SVSP Drs. Lee and Bowman state

a cognizable § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

against the two doctors and will be served. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 8th

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment).

Plaintiff alleges that on February 20, 2006, in retaliation for his arguing

with a guard, correctional officers J. McAnelly and D. Ambriz entered his cell

and stole some of his personal property. Plaintiff further alleges that he filed a

grievance and, in retaliation for doing so, Sgt. D. Galloway and officers Briseno

and Ditter tore up his cell and took more of his personal property.

Liberally construed, plaintiff's allegations against Galloway, Briseno and

Ditter state a cognizable § 1983 claim for relation for exercising his right to file a

grievance. See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 2003) (the right of

Case 3:07-cv-00765-CRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 6
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

access to the courts extends to established prison grievance procedures, thus a

prisoner may not be retaliated against for using such procedures). But plaintiff's

allegations against McAnelly and Ambriz are dismissed because they amount to

no more than a claim for deprivation of property not cognizable under § 1983. 

See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (California law

provides adequate post-deprivation remedy for unlawful deprivation of property).

Plaintiff alleges that since February 2006, SVSP dental staff have not

honored his requests for porcelain fillings for several teeth he had pulled and 

teeth cleaning. To whatever extent plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the claim is

dismissed as moot due to his transfer to RJD. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365,

1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995) (when inmate is released from prison or transferred to

another prison and there is no reasonable expectation nor demonstrated

probability that he will again be subjected to the prison conditions from which he

seeks injunctive relief, the claim for injunctive relief must be dismissed as moot). 

And to whatever he seeks damages, he must name individual defendants and set

forth specific facts showing how their actions and/or omissions actually and

proximately cause to the deprivation his Eight Amendment rights. See Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff alleges that on December 21, 2006, Sgt. Trayham falsely charged

him with a disciplinary violation in retaliation for plaintiff's refusing to take a

cellmate. Plaintiff further alleges that Lt. Caplan falsified evidence at the

subsequent disciplinary hearing and precluded plaintiff from gathering evidence

in his support. 

Liberally construed, plaintiff's allegations against Caplan state a

cognizable § 1983 claim for denial of due process at the disciplinary hearing. 

See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-70 (1974) (setting forth required

Case 3:07-cv-00765-CRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 6
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

procedural protections at prison disciplinary hearings). But plaintiff's allegations

against Trayham are dismissed because they do not amount to more than a claim

for filing false charges and it is well-established that a prisoner has no

constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of

conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest. See

Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff alleges that Eloy Medina and Variz improperly "screened out"

and cancelled some of his prisoner grievances. Plaintiff's allegations against

Medina and Variz are dismissed because it is well-established that there is no

constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system, see

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988), and that a state's creation of a prison administrative

appeal or grievance system does not implicate a liberty interest protected by the

Due Process Clause, see Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir.

1996); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (same). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and copies of this order on the following defendants at

SVSP: Drs. Lee and Bowman, Sgt. Galloway and correctional officers Briseno

and Ditter, and Lt. Caplan. All other named defendants are dismissed. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as

follows:

a. No later than 90 days from the date of this order, defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion

Case 3:07-cv-00765-CRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 6
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

for summary judgment 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 or other dispositive motion, they shall so inform the court

prior to the date their motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be

served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed

with the court and served upon defendants no later than 30 days after defendants

serve plaintiff with the motion. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that 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 contradicts 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. Rand v. Rowland,

Case 3:07-cv-00765-CRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 6
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

154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

Plaintiff is also advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your

case, albeit without prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in

your opposition in order to dispute any “factual record” presented by the

defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120

n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within 15 days of the date

on which plaintiff serves them with the opposition. 

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. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before the parties may

conduct discovery.

4. 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.

5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must

keep the court and all parties 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 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 2, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.07\Hernandez, A1.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-00765-CRB Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 6 of 6