Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04436/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04436-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGG LEE REYNOLDS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SERGEANT MOORE,

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

GOODLETT, CAROPRESO,

MACHUCA, PEREZ, ORNELAS,

SOTELLO, TOTTEN and WILSON,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4436 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE OF

EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM

(Docket Nos. 2, 4)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California, formerly incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

complaining of violations of his civil rights while incarcerated there. Plaintiff also seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos. 2, 4), which is GRANTED in a separate

order filed simultaneously. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and will order

the claims regarding excessive force served as to the named Defendants. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiff alleges that on July 14, 2005, Sergeant Moore and Correctional Officers

Goodlett, Caropreso, Machuca, Ornelas, Sotello, Totten, Wilson and Perez at Salinas

Valley State Prison beat, stabbed and strangled him while he was prone and handcuffed

in retaliation for his suspected involvement in a prior stabbing incident. Plaintiff seeks

damages.

Case 3:06-cv-04436-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 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 2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. 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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

ANALYSIS

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 31 (1993). "After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." 

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation and

citation omitted). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently

serious, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 824, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.

294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of

mind, i.e., the offending conduct was wanton, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297);

LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s allegations are

sufficient to warrant a response. 

Case 3:06-cv-04436-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 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 3

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 and all attachments

thereto and a copy of this order upon: Defendants Sergeant Moore, Officers Goodlett,

Caropreso, Machuca, Ornelas, Sotello, Totten, Wilson and Perez of Salinas Valley

State Prison. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendant

shall either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice

to the Court that he is of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by dispositive

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If 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. 

All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on the Plaintiff.

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

Court and served on Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendant’s

motion is filed. The following notice is for the benefit of all pro se litigants:

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

Case 3:06-cv-04436-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 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 4

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 defendants, your case will be

dismissed and there will be no trial.

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

Plaintiff is 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). 

c. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

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. 

3. 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.

4. 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 five days prior

to the deadline sought to be extended.

5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant,

or Defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel.

6. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Case 3:06-cv-04436-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 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 5

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2007 

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04436-JSW Document 6 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 5