Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-02580/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-02580-1/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

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

JASON GERAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY MORRISON,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-02580-JST 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Re: ECF No.

Plaintiff, an inmate at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, has filed 

a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the Court for review 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate 

order. 

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). 

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

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

Case 4:20-cv-02580-JST Document 12 Filed 05/27/20 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

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that, on May 9, 2017, while housed at Salinas Valley State Prison 

(“SVSP”), he was assisting a Spanish-speaking inmate prepare legal papers when SVSP officer 

Morrison assaulted him. Plaintiff was handcuffed and although he did not resist the correctional 

officers, Officer Morrison lost his temper and hit him with a closed fist at full force on the back of 

his head while yelling foul language. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff argues that the assault caused him 

“atypical and significant hardships of trauma.” Id. Liberally construed, the complaint states a 

cognizable claim for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 Whitley v. 

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and 

1 However, it appears that plaintiff has not met the exhaustion requirement set forth in the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring prisoners to exhaust available 

administrative remedies prior to bring suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983), and/or the principles of 

Younger abstention or O’Shea abstention compel the Court to abstain from considering this claim, 

see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971) (under principles of comity and federalism, 

federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive 

or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances); Los Angeles Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 

F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 1992) (O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), stands for general 

proposition that federal courts “should be very reluctant to grant relief that would entail heavy 

federal interference in such sensitive state activities as administration of the judicial system.”). 

Plaintiff states that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to this claim 

because the incident “is now at a pre-trial stage in Monterey County Superior Court [Case No.] 

17cr003094 and therefore the administrative process is on ‘hold’ until the outcome of this case.” 

ECF No. 1 at 3. 

Case 4:20-cv-02580-JST Document 12 Filed 05/27/20 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

unusual punishment forbidden by Eighth Amendment); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 

(1992) (core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in good-faith effort to maintain or 

restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows.

1. Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim 

against defendant SVSP Officer Morrison. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States 

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint (ECF No. 1), with all 

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon defendant Officer Anthony Morrison at 

Salinas Valley State Prison, 31625 Highway 101, Soledad CA 93960. A courtesy copy of the 

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

General’s Office. 

2. 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, defendant must file 

and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendant is of the 

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendant 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).2

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

must be filed with the Court and served upon defendant no later than 28 days from the date the 

2

If defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as 

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendant must raise such argument in a motion for summary 

judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that 

failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 

should be raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion).

Case 4:20-cv-02580-JST Document 12 Filed 05/27/20 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

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.

c. Defendant 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.

3. 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 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. Rand v. 

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A). (The Rand notice above does 

not excuse defendant’s obligation to serve said notice again concurrently with a motion for 

summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

4. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on 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 defendant’s

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

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

directly to defendant.

Case 4:20-cv-02580-JST Document 12 Filed 05/27/20 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

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 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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: May 27, 2020

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-02580-JST Document 12 Filed 05/27/20 Page 5 of 5