Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03700/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03700-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

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 

JACOB SILVERMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

IVER LIEN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 17-03700 BLF (PR) 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; SETTING NEW 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

Docket. No. 59 

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, against prison officials at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility (“HCCF”). 

The Court found the second amended complaint, (Docket No. 12, hereinafter “SAC”), 

stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs, and ordered the matter served on Defendants. (Docket No. 18.) Defendants Iver 

Lien, F.N.P., Dr. Michael Burleson, and April Barnhart, R.N., filed a motion for summary 

judgment on the grounds that they did not act with deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs.1

 (Docket No. 59, hereinafter “Mot.”) Plaintiff filed an opposition, (Docket 

 

1

 Defendants Dean Flint and Duane Christian filed a separate motion to dismiss the claims 

against them for failure to plead sufficient facts to establish liability which the Court 

Case 5:17-cv-03700-BLF Document 83 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 3
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

No. 67), supplemental papers thereto, (Docket No. 68), and Defendants filed a reply, 

(Docket No. 71). 

Information provided for the first time in these papers indicates that Plaintiff was a 

pretrial detainee during the relevant period of this action. (Opp. at 6.) Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion applies the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard 

for convicted inmates, which is not the applicable law for evaluating medical care provided 

to pretrial detainees. Because a pretrial detainee has not been convicted of a crime, but has 

only been arrested, the detainee’s right to receive adequate medical care derives from the 

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than from the Eighth 

Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Gibson v. County of 

Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 

(1979)); Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). 

Accordingly, Defendants’ summary judgment motion will be denied without prejudice to 

refiling using the applicable law under Gibson. 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Flint and Christian were dismissed with leave 

to amend, and an amendment is currently due no later than August 12, 2019. (Docket No. 

82.) Plaintiff is advised that in light of this new information, he must allege sufficient facts 

to support a medical claim against these Defendants under the Fourth Amendment, rather 

than the Eighth Amendment. 

CONCLUSION 

For the forgoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. Defendants Iver Lien, Dr. Michael Burleson, and April Barnhart’s motion 

for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to filing a renewed summary 

 

granted, but with leave to amend. (Docket No. 82.) Plaintiff’s amendment, stating claims 

against Defendants Flint and Christian, is currently due by August 12, 2019. (Id.) 

Case 5:17-cv-03700-BLF Document 83 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 3
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

judgment motion using the applicable law. (Docket No. 59.) 

2. No later than fifty-two (52) days from the date this order is filed, Defendants 

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the 

medical claim against them. Defendants shall make any reference to any papers filed with 

their initial summary judgment motion, but must resubmit all supporting affidavits and 

exhibits with the renew motion. 

3. 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. In the interest of justice, Plaintiff’s opposition papers, (Docket Nos. 67, 

28), shall be returned to him for use in preparing a new opposition to any renewed 

summary judgment papers filed by Defendants. 

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

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

5. All other provisions of the Court’s original Order of Service, (Docket No. 

18), shall remain in effect. 

This order terminates Docket No. 59. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order Denying MSJ; Briefing Sched 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\03700Silverman_deny-msj;brief 

Case 5:17-cv-03700-BLF Document 83 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 3