Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01278/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01278-0/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

ANTHONY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSANA LIM-JAVATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01278-SI 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Anthony Smith filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to complain 

about conditions of confinement at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad (“CTFSoledad”). His complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The

complaint will be served on the two defendants. 

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges the following: 

Smith hurt his right shoulder several years ago and thereafter received cortisone injections 

and physical therapy. That treatment proved ineffective. 

On April 4, 2014, his primary care provider, Dr. Friederichs, noted Smith’s shoulder 

problems and submitted a request for services (RFS) for an MRI. Chief medical officer Dr.

Rosana Lim-Javate approved the RFS on April 25, 2014. The MRI showed problems with 

Smith’s shoulder. Dr. Friederichs then submitted a RFS for an orthopedic consult to obtain 

needed surgery. Without examining Smith and in disregard of the MRI results, Dr. Lim-Javate

denied the RFS.

Case 3:16-cv-01278-SI Document 3 Filed 04/26/16 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

Smith’s condition worsened and Dr. Friederichs submitted another RFS for an orthopedic 

consult, which Dr. Darrin Bright approved on September 22, 2014. Smith was seen by Dr. 

Kowall, an orthopedist, on October 22, 2014; Dr. Kowall recommended an EMG/NCS and 

neurology consult before any shoulder surgery. After studies were done, on February 18, 2015, 

Dr. Kowall examined Smith again and reviewed the nerve conduction studies; Dr. Kowall 

determined he could not recommend surgery until a tertiary orthopedic consultation was 

completed. Dr. Friederichs requested such a consultation on February 28, 2015, and Dr. Bright 

denied the request twice without examining Smith.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 which 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. at § 

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. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause requires that prison 

officials provide for the health and safety of prisoners. A prison official violates the Eighth 

Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, 

sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s 

health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104. 

Liberally construed, the pro se complaint states cognizable § 1983 claims against Dr. Lim-Javate 

Case 3:16-cv-01278-SI Document 3 Filed 04/26/16 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

and Dr. Bright for allegedly denying the requests for services with deliberate indifference to 

Smith’s serious medical needs. 

CONCLUSION

1. Liberally construed, the complaint states cognizable § 1983 claims against Dr. LimJavate and Dr. Bright for violations of Smith’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. All other 

claims and defendants are dismissed. 

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, and a copy of the complaint, and a copy of this order upon Dr. 

Rosana Lim-Javate and Dr. Darrin Bright, both of whom apparently are on the medical staff at the 

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for 

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than July 22, 2016, defendants must file and serve a motion for 

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case 

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendants must so inform the court prior to the date 

the motion is due. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment, defendants must provide to 

plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time they file such a 

motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). 

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

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than August 19, 2016. Plaintiff 

must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this 

order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and 

served no later than September 2, 2016.

Case 3:16-cv-01278-SI Document 3 Filed 04/26/16 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

4. Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for 

motions for summary judgment:

The defendants may make 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). 

If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 

he is seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if a 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the 

plaintiff's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

5. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's 

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's 

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to defendant, 

but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to counsel rather 

than directly to that defendant. 

6. 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 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01278-SI Document 3 Filed 04/26/16 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

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01278-SI Document 3 Filed 04/26/16 Page 5 of 5