Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02488/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02488-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DANIEL CARL FREDERICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEE WONG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02488-KAW 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff Daniel Carl Frederickson, a state prisoner incarcerated at the San Quentin State 

Prison (“SQSP”), has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the 

violation of his constitutional rights by Dr. Lee Wong, Dr. Courtney Corrado, Dr. Sheila Dickson, 

Dr. Roderick Ponath and Correctional Counselor Art Maneja. Plaintiff has consented to the 

jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge over this action. Plaintiff has filed 

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which is granted in a separate order. The 

Court now addresses the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint. 

DISCUSSION

I. 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).

Case 4:15-cv-02488-KAW Document 4 Filed 08/07/15 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 California

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). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the 

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Caifornia Dep’t of Corrections & 

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 

1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives 

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 

participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to 

do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

The following is a summary of the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint. On October 9, 

2014, Dr. Wong convened a hearing attended by all Defendants to involuntarily place Plaintiff into 

San Quentin’s Psychiatric Inpatient Program (“PIP”). As soon as all Defendants were assembled, 

Dr. Corrado ordered a Correctional Officer to escort Plaintiff from the meeting room. Forty-five 

minutes later, Plaintiff was allowed into the room. Dr. Wong denied Plaintiff’s requests to read a 

prepared statement and to call witnesses in his defense. As a result of Defendants’ decision at this 

meeting, Plaintiff was transferred from grade “A” status into the PIP where he was denied all 

property and privileges. On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiff asserts that he has been 

deprived of his liberty and property without due process of law.

Liberally construed, the allegations appear to state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment 

procedural due process claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff states a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of his procedural 

due process rights against all Defendants. 

Case 4:15-cv-02488-KAW Document 4 Filed 08/07/15 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 California

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 

(docket no. 1) and all attachments thereto, a copy of this Order and a copy of the form “Consent or 

Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” to SQSP Defendants Lee Wong, Courtney Corrado, 

Sheila Dickson, Roderick Ponath and Art Maneja. This form can also be found at 

www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy 

of this Order to the State Attorney General’s Office in San Francisco, and a copy of this Order to 

Plaintiff.

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

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 forms. 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 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 advised 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 days from the date on which the request for 

waiver was sent or twenty days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

4. Defendants shall file their Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on or 

before the date their answer is due.

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

a. No later than thirty days from the date his answer is due, Defendants shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendants file a motion for 

Case 4:15-cv-02488-KAW Document 4 Filed 08/07/15 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 California

summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in 

all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 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. 

At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, 

Defendants shall comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th 

Cir. 2012), and provide Plaintiff with notice of what is required of him to oppose a summary 

judgment motion. 

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive 

motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight days after 

the date on which Defendants’ motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice 

should be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion:

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 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 [in favor of the defendants], your 

case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read the notice that will be provided to 

him by Defendants when the motion is filed, and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must come 

forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his 

Case 4:15-cv-02488-KAW Document 4 Filed 08/07/15 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 California

claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the burden of proving his allegations in this 

case, he must be prepared to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files his 

opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Such evidence may include sworn 

declarations from himself and other witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents 

authenticated by sworn declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment simply 

by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen days after the date 

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

d. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 their counsel.

8. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court informed 

of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.

9. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any 

motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the deadline 

sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02488-KAW Document 4 Filed 08/07/15 Page 5 of 5