Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04584/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04584-0/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

Order of Service; Directing Ds to file Disp. Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Elrod04584_svc.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES B. ELROD,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-04584 JF (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE;

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Pelican Bay State Prison

(“PBSP”) in Soledad, filed the instant civil rights action in pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against PBSP prison officials for unconstitutional acts. Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate written order. 

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

Case 5:09-cv-04584-JF Document 4 Filed 02/03/10 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; Directing Ds to file Disp. Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Elrod04584_svc.wpd 2

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 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. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff challenges the PBSP officials decision finding him ineligible for inactive

gang status although he had no current criminal gang activity within the past six years. 

Plaintiff claims the following as grounds for relief: (1) Defendants violated due process

by using unreliable and “untrue” information that does not constitute some evidence of

current criminal gang activity, (Compl. Attach. at 10); (2) Defendant supervisors’ failed

“to train, supervise, investigate and discipline”those responsible for “the implementation

of the inactive status review and criteria[]”, which resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s

rights, (id. at 10-11); (3) the erroneous decision violates the Eighth Amendment, (id. at

11); (4) Defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights, (id. at 12);

(5) the wrongful decision was made in retaliation for the homicide of plaintiff’s cell-mate,

(id.); (6) Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights were violated during the inactive status

review process, (id. at 13); and (7) Defendants violated Plaintiff’s state due process rights,

(id.).

Claim two fails to state a claim because Plaintiff has failed to specifically allege

how Defendant Francisco Jacquez, as the acting warden at PBSP, was personally

involved in the deprivation of his constitutional right. A supervisor may be liable under

section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation

or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the

Case 5:09-cv-04584-JF Document 4 Filed 02/03/10 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; Directing Ds to file Disp. Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Elrod04584_svc.wpd 3

constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.

1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). A supervisor therefore generally “is only liable for

constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed

the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff makes no factual allegations showing that

Defendant Jacquez participated in or directed the alleged violations. The only specific

mention of Defendant Jazquez in the facts is the conclusory statement that this defendant

conspired with Defendant Beeson in denying his appeal on the matter. (Compl. Attach. at

9.) Furthermore, claim four regarding conspiracy is conclusory as it is not supported by

material facts. Accordingly, the conspiracy claim is insufficient to state a claim under §

1983. Woodrum v. Woodword County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Claim three fails to state a claim as the denial of inactive gang status does not arise

to the level of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and Plaintiff

has presented no legal authority to show otherwise. 

For the foregoing reasons, claims 2, 3 and 4 are DISMISSED. Liberally

construed, Plaintiff’s remaining claims – 1, 5 and 6 – are cognizable under § 1983. The

Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim 7. See United Mine Workers v.

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendant Francisco Jacquez is DISMISSED from this action as all claims 

against him have been dismissed. The Clerk shall terminate this defendant from the

docket. 

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 in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Correctional Officers D. J. Harlow,

R. Rice, J. Beeson and S. Kissel at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail

Case 5:09-cv-04584-JF Document 4 Filed 02/03/10 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

 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; Directing Ds to file Disp. Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Elrod04584_svc.wpd 4

courtesy copies of the Complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s

Office. 

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 complaint found to be cognizable above, or, within such time, notify the Court that

Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion.

a. If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that

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 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. 

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 Defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

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

Case 5:09-cv-04584-JF Document 4 Filed 02/03/10 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

Order of Service; Directing Ds to file Disp. Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Elrod04584_svc.wpd 5

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 Plaintiff:

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. 

Case 5:09-cv-04584-JF Document 4 Filed 02/03/10 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; Directing Ds to file Disp. Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Elrod04584_svc.wpd 6

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 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).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

1/29/10

Case 5:09-cv-04584-JF Document 4 Filed 02/03/10 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES B. ELROD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV09-04584 JF 

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.

James B. Elrod H-25268

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

2/3/10

2/3/10

Case 5:09-cv-04584-JF Document 4 Filed 02/03/10 Page 7 of 7