Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02404/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-02404-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIMON HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAN MATEO COUNTY JAIL 

MEDICAL PROVIDERS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 19-02404 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

CLERK 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Correctional Institute (“CCI”) in 

Tehachapi, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

medical personnel at the San Mateo County Jail (“SMCJ”), where he was previously 

incarcerated.1

 The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for Plaintiff to 

correct deficiencies. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 10, 

hereinafter “Am. Compl.” 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

1

 This matter was reassigned to this Court on October 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 12. 

Case 5:19-cv-02404-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 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 Californi

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 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 claims he is 64 years and has been a Type-1 diabetic for 25 years. Am. 

Compl. at 3. This requires he receive daily insulin shots of “25 lentos/8 movos,” the lack 

of which (or improper dosage) could result in shock, loss of limbs, comma, organ failures, 

and even death. Id. While he was housed at SMCJ, he claims he did not receive his

medication on time or in proper doses and began to suffer sickness and chronic pain. Id. 

Plaintiff claims SMCJ would wait until he was in severe condition before administering 

medical attention and providing insulin for his diabetic condition. Id. at 3-4. He describes 

several incidents of inadequate medical care which occurred on February 27, 2018, March 

14, 2018, and June 19, 2018. Id. at 5-7. Plaintiff claims Defendant Carlos Morales, the 

Director of Correctional Health in San Mateo County, failed to adequately train and 

supervise his subordinate nurses and to ensure that adequate medical care was being 

administered to Plaintiff who suffered bad medical treatment that caused serious injuries. 

Id. at 3. He claims the denial of adequate medical care violated the Eighth Amendment as 

amounting to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Id. Based on the foregoing, 

Plaintiff states a cognizable § 1983 claim. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Case 5:19-cv-02404-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 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 Californi

a

Plaintiff previously stated that he was unable to name individual nurses and his 

primary care provider because they withheld their names from him. Dkt. No. 9 at 3. Once 

Defendant Morales is served, Plaintiff may be able to obtain the names of the individuals 

who treated him through discovery and then move to add them to this action. 

CONCLUSION 

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

1. 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, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendant 

Director Carlos Morales at Correctional Health Services (300 Bradford Street, 

Redwood City, CA 94063). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 

 2. 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 the amended 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 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 day 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 

Case 5:19-cv-02404-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 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 Californi

a

the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

 3. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 

Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 

respect to the claims in the amended complaint found to be cognizable above. 

 a. 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 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. 

 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the

Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate 

warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 

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

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

motion is filed. 

 Plaintiff is also 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 fourteen (14) days after 

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

Case 5:19-cv-02404-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 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 Californi

a

 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 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. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: __March 30, 2020 ___ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Svc 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\02404Gonzalez_svc 

Case 5:19-cv-02404-BLF Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 5