Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00603/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00603-2/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

WILLIAM E. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. E. DUCART, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00603-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff William E. Brown, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed this pro 

se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with 

leave to amend, and he has filed an amended complaint, which is now before the Court for review 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

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 be granted or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

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

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 26 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 6
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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 

must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

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

According to the amended complaint, plaintiff is a minister affiliated with the United 

Kings Against Genocidal Environments (“KAGE”) religious community. KAGE was recognized 

by the prison as a “religious activity group,” and was allowed to use the PBSP Facility A chapel 

for assembly. Beginning in or around January 2015, however, PBSP defendants correctional 

officer Espinoza and lieutenant R. Amis confiscated the group’s religious materials and denied 

them the right to religious assembly. Defendant Robert Losacco, the PBSP Community Resource 

Manager, has directed that plaintiff will not be permitted to assemble within the prison chapel 

until he changes his “religious ideology,” as well as the name of his group. In the meantime, other 

religious groups have been permitted to assemble without any similar requirement.

Giving it the liberal construction to which it is entitled, the pro se amended complaint 

states cognizable claims for violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of 

religion, First Amendment Establishment Clause, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights, 

and rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. 

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 26 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 6
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

§ 2000cc-1. The complaint adequately links defendants Espinoza, Amis, and Losacco to the 

claims.

The amended complaint also asserts claims against various other PBSP officials and 

correctional officers for denial of access to courts, retaliation, and excessive force. Such claims 

are not properly joined with the religious practices claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) 

provides that multiple parties may be joined as defendants in one action only “if any right to relief 

is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the 

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or 

fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” The additional claims do not arise out of 

the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as those that form the 

basis for the religious practices claims, and do not present questions of law or fact common to all 

defendants in the religious practices claims. The denial of access to courts, retaliation, and 

excessive force claims therefore are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff alleging them in a 

separate action or actions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The complaint, liberally construed, states cognizable religious practices claims 

under § 1983. The Clerk shall add Officer Espinoza as a defendant on the docket in this action. 

The Clerk shall terminate C.E. Ducart, J. Taylor, Lt. Kurby, Alex Valuiski, Cindy Fox, L. 

Gutieriez, and T. Buchanan as defendants on the docket in this action.

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

prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint with all attachments thereto, and a copy of 

this order upon defendants Officer Espinoza, R. Amis, and R. Losacco at Pelican Bay State 

Prison. 

A courtesy copy of the amended complaint with attachments and this order shall also be 

mailed to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

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

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants must file 

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 26 Filed 12/29/16 Page 3 of 6
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

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. A motion for summary judgment also must be 

accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what 

is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 

2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be 

served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust available administrative remedies similarly must be accompanied by a Wyatt notice. 

Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (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 28 days from the date the 

motion is filed. 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. 

Plaintiff also must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding motions to dismiss for nonexhaustion provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion to dismiss. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the 

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

hearing will be held on the motion. 

4. Plaintiff is advised that 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(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and 

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 26 Filed 12/29/16 Page 4 of 6
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

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) (en banc) (App. A).

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order to dispute any 

“factual record” presented by defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

(The Rand and Wyatt notices above do not excuse defendants’ obligation to serve said 

notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies and motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

5. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants’

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendants’

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

defendants, 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 

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. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 

to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 26 Filed 12/29/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/29/2016

Case 4:16-cv-00603-HSG Document 26 Filed 12/29/16 Page 6 of 6