Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03200/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03200-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 11/10/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KEVIN EARL HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF ROBERT DOYLE, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE;

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises Eighth Amendment medical treatment claims against

staff at the Marin County Jail. Upon review of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),

the Court concludes that plaintiff has stated claims for relief. Defendants are directed to file

a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion relative to such claims on or before

February 10, 2016. The Court further directs that defendants are to adhere to the notice

provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this 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 any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 8 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

2

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 be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that he has a disability caused by a degenerative hip disease and back

problems. He alleges that (1) in January 2015, a Marin County Jail nurse, Diana, denied him

the use of a cane and appropriate housing for his disability; (2) over the next six months,

unnamed prison employees failed to inform him that there was “special housing” for persons

with disabilities; (3) in May 2015, Deputies R. Cloney and J. Randel denied plaintiff the use

of a wheelchair during a court visit; (4) in June 2015, Deputy M. Mendez denied plaintiff the

use of a wheelchair during a court visit; (5) on several occasions nurse Larry Trafoid ignored

plaintiff’s request for examination and treatment; (6) on several occasions Dr. Janice Barry

ignored his requests for examination and treatment; and (7) supervisory personnel (Dr. Barry,

nurse practitioner Jim Rogers, Sheriff Robert Doyle, and Captain Douglas Endy) are

responsible for the inadequate medical care at the jail because of their promulgation and

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 8 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

3

implementation of medical and disability care protocols. 

Only Claim 3, which, when liberally construed states a claim for relief, shall proceed

in this action. Claim 1 is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has not provided the nurses’s full name,

thereby making service of the complaint difficult. Claim 2 is DISMISSED because it is a

general complaint about medical services at the jail and fails to provide concrete details

(defendants, dates, actual incidents) that would give rise to a cognizable claim. Claims 4, 5,

and 6 are DISMISSED because they involve different defendants than Claim 3. Claim 7 is

DISMISSED because plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts showing a nexus between the

supervisors’ specific policies and the acts of their employees. There is no respondeat

superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is not

enough that the supervisor merely has a supervisory relationship over the defendants; the

plaintiff must show that the supervisor “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. Furthermore, supervisor defendants are

entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or

“conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal

involvement in their subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

1948–52 (2009). Plaintiff also has not identified the specific policies and procedures these

persons created or implemented and exactly how those specific policies and procedures are

related to the alleged failure of jail personnel to provide adequate medical care. 

All claims but Claim 3 are DISMISSED without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to

pursue these now-dismissed claims, he must file a separate civil rights action. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. 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 (Docket No.

1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Deputies R. Cloney and J. Randel at

the Marin County Jail. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 8 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

4

order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

2. No later than ninety (90) 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. 

a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by Albino v. Baca, 747

F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).

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 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. 

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

served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ motion is

filed. 

4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

5. 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. 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.

7. 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.

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 8 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3200 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

5

8. 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).

9. 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. 

10. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs

be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939–41 (9th Cir.

2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and

serves any motion for summary judgment:

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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03200-RS Document 8 Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of 5