Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00685/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00685-0/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

NOLAN F. LEONARDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY KAIWAI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00685-DMR (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, who is currently in custody at the San Francisco County Jail #5 in San Bruno,

California, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the use of 

excessive force against him during an incident in September 2018. 

Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this matter has been assigned 

to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkts. 3, 5. 

Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate 

written Order. Dkts. 2, 6.

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred in 

San Francisco County, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

In his complaint, Plaintiff lists the following officers from the San Francisco County 

Sheriff’s Department: Deputy Kaiwai; Lt. DeGuzman; and unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies. Dkt. 1 at 

2-3. Under the “Relief” section, he states as follows:

I want the court to order an investigation on the assault that took 

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 1 of 8
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

place in Sept. and I want every deputy involved to be charged 

accordingly. DeGuzman should not be a [lieutenant]. Kaiwai 

should be held responsible for my permanent injury.

Id. at 3. It is unclear whether he seeks monetary damages for the aforementioned “permanent 

injury.” See id.

II. 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. 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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. 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. West v. 

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

B. Excessive Force 

Plaintiff alleges that “[i]n September of 2018, unnecessary and excessive force was used 

on [him] . . . for no legitimate reason, by the San Francisco Sheriff[’]s Department, as directed and 

encouraged by [Defendant] DeGuzman.” Dkt. 1 at 3. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Kaiwai 

“inflicted permanent damage to [his] right elbow.” Id. Plaintiff also claims that he was “tortured 

for 15 minutes by Sheriff[’]s Deputies while handcuffed behind [his] back.” Id. Plaintiff alleges 

that “[his] right arm was swollen and bruised as was [his] left eye” and that he suffered from 

lacerations on his wrists “from overtightened metal handcuffs.” Id. Liberally construed, 

Plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Kaiwai and 

DeGuzman as well as the aforementioned unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies.

1

 

1

 Plaintiff contends he filed a grievance on the aforementioned claim of excessive force, but 

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 2 of 8
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

However, regarding the unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies, Plaintiff describes these Doe 

Defendants as those officers who were “directed and encouraged” by Defendant DeGuzman to use 

excessive force against Plaintiff, and who “tortured” Plaintiff for fifteen minutes while he was 

handcuffed, but Plaintiff does not know these Doe Defendants’ names. Id. Although the use of 

Doe Defendants to identify defendants is not favored in the Ninth Circuit, see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 

629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 406 F.2d 515, 518 (9th 

Cir. 1968), situations may arise where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to 

the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity 

through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not 

uncover their identities or that the complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See Gillespie, 

629 F.2d at 642; Velasquez v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 1986). Plaintiff must 

provide to the court the names of these Sheriff’s Deputies (involved in the September 2018 

incident of alleged use of excessive force) as directed below.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim of excessive force against

Defendants Kaiwai and DeGuzman as well as the unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies involved in the 

September 2018 incident of alleged use of excessive force. Plaintiff must provide to the court the 

names of these Sheriff’s Deputies by the date scheduled in this Order for any served Defendant to 

file a dispositive motion. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of any claims against these 

unnamed Sheriff’s Deputies without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new action against them. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 

Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint 

and all attachments thereto (dkt. 1), a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, and a copy of 

 

“[t]here was never a response to [his] grievance issue.” Dkt. 1 at 2. It thus appears he has not 

exhausted his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). If the allegations that 

his grievance was not answered are true, however, it may be that administrative remedies are not 

“available” within the meaning of the statute. This is an issue better resolved at a later stage of the

case.

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 3 of 8
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

this Order to: Deputy Kaiwai and Lt. DeGuzman at the San Francisco County Sheriff’s 

Department. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order to the 

San Francisco County Counsel’s Office. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to 

Plaintiff.

3. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on 

behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear the 

cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver 

form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date 

that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required 

to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver 

was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of 

summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the 

waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of 

service of the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before 

Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on 

which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, 

whichever is later. Defendants shall also respond to the Notice of Assignment of Prisoner 

Case to a United States Magistrate Judge for Trial by filing a consent/declination form on 

the date the Answer is due. 

4. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date their answer is due, Defendants 

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion must be 

supported by adequate factual documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from 

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 4 of 8
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

the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand2notice 

so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to 

oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out 

in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss 

for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice. 

However, the court notes that under the new law of the circuit, in the rare event that a failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, Defendants may move for dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) as opposed to the previous practice of moving under an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 

F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), should be raised by a 

defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Otherwise if a failure to exhaust is not clear on 

the face of the complaint, Defendants must produce evidence proving failure to exhaust in a 

motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff shows a failure to exhaust, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment 

under Rule 56. Id. But if material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied and the 

district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts in a preliminary proceeding. Id. at 

1168.

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. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court 

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date on which 

Defendants’ motion is filed. 

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 

 

2 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 5 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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, 154 

F.3d at 962-63.

Plaintiff also is advised that—in the rare event that Defendants argue that the failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint—a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. To avoid dismissal, you have the right to present any evidence to show that you did 

exhaust your available administrative remedies before coming to federal court. Such evidence 

may include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed under penalty of perjury by you or 

others who have personal knowledge of relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents—

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; (3) statements 

in your complaint insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you have 

personal knowledge of the matters state therein. As mentioned above, in considering a motion to 

dismiss for failure to exhaust under Rule 12(b)(6) or failure to exhaust in a summary judgment 

motion under Rule 56, the district judge may hold a preliminary proceeding and decide disputed 

issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168.

(The notices above do not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve similar notices again 

concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies and 

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 6 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935.)

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the 

date Plaintiff’s 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. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Leave of the court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose 

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

6. All communications by Plaintiff with the court must be served on Defendants or 

their counsel, once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to them.

7. 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. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 

while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 

address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 

directed to the pro se party by the court has been returned to the court as not deliverable, and 

(2) the court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro 

se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 

8. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2019 

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 7 of 8
8

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

NOLAN F. LEONARDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAIWAI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:19-cv-00685-DMR 

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 July 5, 2019, 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.

Nolan F. Leonardo ID: S687016

1 Moreland Drive

San Bruno, CA 94066 

Dated: July 5, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

 

 

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:19-cv-00685-DMR Document 10 Filed 07/05/19 Page 8 of 8