Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03964/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03964-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMAAL SMITH,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

C.E. DUCART; D. MELTON;

LAWRY; DOES 1-8, 

Defendants.

/

No. C 15-3964 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DENYING

MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND EXTENSION OF

TIME; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

(Dkt. Nos. 5, 12)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this civil rights case under 42

U.S.C. 1983 alleging that prison officials ant Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where

Plaintiff was formerly housed, violated his constitutional rights. He is granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is ordered

served upon defendant.

ANALYSIS

A. 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). 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

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 6
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

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

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

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked by another inmate on the PBSP recreational yard

on September 10, 2014. According to plaintiff, defendants Does 1-8 failed to adequately search

inmates as they entered the yard. The inmate who attacked him had a weapon in his shoe,

which Does 1-8 failed to search. After the inmate cut plaintiff on his ear, Does 1-8 failed to

stop the attack, and the inmate cut Plaintiff again, threw him to the ground, and punched him. 

Plaintiff eventually received stitches, and he has scars from where the inmate cut him. 

When liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations set forth a cognizable claim against the

Doe defendants for violating his Eighth Amendment and substantive due process rights by

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 6
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

3

failing to protect him from a dangerous inmate when they failed to adequately search the inmate

and to intervene during the attack. When plaintiff learns the names of the Doe defendants, he

shall provide them to defendants and submit them to the court. At that time, the complaint will

be amended retroactively to reflect the Doe defendants’ names. 

Plaintiff also names Warden C.E. Ducart and two supervisors — Captain D. Melton and

Lieutenant Lawry — as defendants. He alleges that they are liable on a respondeat superior

basis. Under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under Section 1983,

however. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). He also alleges they failed to

implement policies and adequately train and supervise prison employees in search procedures,

which resulted in ineffective searches of inmates (including plaintiff’s attacker) before they

entered the prison yard on September 10, 2014. These allegations sets forth a cognizable theory

of liability against the Warden and other supervisor defendants. See Henry A. v. Willden, 678

F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)) (a

supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the

constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's

wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation). Accordingly, plaintiff has alleged a

cognizably claim for the violation of his Eighth Amendment and substantive due process rights

against the supervisory defendants.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:

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

prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint (Dkt. No. 9) with all attachments thereto, and a

copy of this order upon defendants Warden C.E. Ducart, Correctional Captain D. Melton,

and Correctional Lieutenant Lawry at Pelican Bay State Prison. A courtesy copy of the

complaint with attachments and this order shall also be mailed to the California Attorney

General’s Office.

2. Defendants shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Procedure.

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case:

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

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. 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, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendant no later than 28 days from the date of service of the motion. 

Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to

him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and

Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

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

service of the opposition.

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. 

e. Along with his motion, defendants shall proof that they served plaintiff the

Rand warning at the same time they served him with their motion. Failure to do so will result in

the summary dismissal of their motion. 

4. All communications by the 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.

5. 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.

6. It is the 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 4 of 6
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

5

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).

7. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to provide documents about his financial

ability to pay is DENIED as unnecessary in light of the order granting him leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as there is no right to

counsel in civil cases, plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to present his claims adequately,

and the circumstances of this case do not necessitate counsel at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19 , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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 [current Rule 56(c)], 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 3:15-cv-03964-WHA Document 15 Filed 10/20/15 Page 6 of 6