Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02469/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02469-0/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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANKLIN RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN SPEARMAN, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-02469 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL SERVICE;

DISMISSING CLAIMS WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at California Training Facility (“CTF”) in Soledad,

California, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

against CTF prison officials. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

will be granted 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

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 8
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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd 2

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 id. § 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). 

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. Plaintiff’s Claims

According to the complaint, on July 14, 2014, Plaintiff was summoned by

Correctional Officer Abanico for a random urine test, his second urine test within a twoweek period. (Docket Nos. 1 at 3 and 1-1 at 3.) Officer Abanico ordered Plaintiff to

strip naked, bend, and cough. (Docket No. 1 at 3.) Officer Abanico had Plaintiff stay

bent for several minutes. (Id.) During this time, Officer Abanico stared at Plaintiff;

looked Plaintiff up and down; and behaved in an aggressive and malicious manner. 

(Docket Nos. 1 at 3 and 1-1 at 3.) Officer Abanico’s actions made Plaintiff feel

humiliated. (Docket No. 1-1 at 3.) Officer Abanico also failed to provide Plaintiff with

disposable gloves after Plaintiff was searched for contaminants, and failed to have a

witness present during the urine test, in violation of prison protocol. (Docket No. 1 at

3.) 

On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 602 appeal alleging that Abanico had sexually

harassed him while under the supervision of Warden Spearman. (Docket No 1 at 3.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Captain D. Artis denied his appeal in a biased manner. (Id.) 

In the instant § 1983 action, Plaintiff claims that his civil rights were violated in

the following ways: Officer Abanico sexually harassed him during the urine test;

Warden Spearman failed to intervene; and Captain Artis was biased for allowing

Officer Abanico to act in a malicious manner and with disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. 

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 8
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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd 3

Plaintiff also brings suit against Captain Generald A. Ellis. (Compl. at 3.)

C. Analysis

A prisoner may state an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983 for sexual

harassment if the alleged sexual harassment was sufficiently harmful, i.e., a departure

from “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,”

and the defendant acted with intent to harm the prisoner. See Thomas v. District of

Columbia, 887 F. Supp. 1, 3–4 (D.D.C. 1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

Sexual assault, coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary standards

of decency and cause physical and psychological harm, see Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d

1521, 1525–31 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983 for sexual harassment against

Officer Abanico.

However, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Warden Spearman, Captain Artis,

or Captain Generald A. Ellis. None of these defendants were directly involved in, or

present during, Officer Abanico’s alleged sexual assault of Plaintiff. 

There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no liability under the

theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. See Board of

Cty. Commission of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). As to supervisors,

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. See Henry

A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003–04 (9th Cir. 2012). The inquiry into causation must

be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual

defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Sweeping

conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead “set forth specific facts

as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Id. at 634.

The sole allegation against Warden Spearman is that he “fail[ed] to intervene.” 

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 8
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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd 4

(Compl. at 3.) There is no indication that Warden Spearman knew about the sexual

harassment, much less that he was forewarned about it or present during it. In other

words, there is no casual connection between Warden Spearman and Abanico’s sexual

harassment. Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a cognizable § 1983 claim against

Warden Spearman. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim against

Warden Spearman is DISMISSED with leave to amend, if Plaintiff can truthfully allege

facts that would cure the identified deficiency. See, e.g., McQuillion v.

Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Leave to amend should be

granted unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts,

and should be granted more liberally to pro se plaintiffs.”).

The sole allegation against Captain Artis is that he reviewed and denied

Plaintiff’s grievance regarding Abanico’s sexual assault. The allegation that a

defendant was involved in reviewing and denying an inmate’s grievance cannot serve as

the sole basis for liability under § 1983. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,

860 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying claim of loss of a liberty interest in processing of inmate

appeal because inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison

grievance procedure). However, if the prison official who denied a prisoner’s appeals

had the authority and opportunity to prevent an ongoing constitutional violation, the

prisoner may be able to establish liability by alleging that the prison official knew about

an existing or impending violation and failed to prevent it. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisory official liable under § 1983 if he knew of a

violation and failed to act to prevent it). Plaintiff does not allege that Captain Artis

knew of an ongoing or impending violation and failed to prevent it. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s claim against Captain Artis is DISMISSED with leave to amend if Plaintiff

can truthfully allege facts that would cure the identified deficiency.

There is no allegation against Captain Ellis, just a sentence fragment, “And Capt.

Generald A. Ellis.” (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff has failed to provide a “short and plain

statement of the claim [against Captain Ellis] showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 8
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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd 5

relief,” as required by Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against Captain Ellis is DISMISSED

with leave to amend if Plaintiff can truthfully allege facts that would state a cognizable

§ 1983 claim against Captain Ellis.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Officer

Abanico. Plaintiff’s claims against Warden Spearman, Captain Artis, or Captain

Generald A. Ellis are DISMISSED with leave to amend.

2. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his claims against Warden Spearman, Captain

Artis, or Captain Generald A. Ellis, he must file an amended complaint within thirty

(30) days from the date this order is filed. The amended complaint must include the

caption and civil case number used in this order (15-02469 EJD (PR)) and the words

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. An amended complaint

completely replaces the previous complaints. Plaintiff must therefore include in his

amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he

wishes to sue, including the Eighth Amendment claim which the Court has already

found cognizable. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Claims

and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint will not be considered by

the Court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). The amended

complaint must be simple, concise and direct and must state clearly and succinctly how

each and every Defendant is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected

rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days and in accordance

with this order will result in a finding that further leave to amend would be futile. 

The action will therefore proceed only on the cognizable claim identified above.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 5 of 8
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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd 6

form with his copy of this Order.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for 

Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a

copy of the complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendant

Abanico at the Correctional Training Facility (P.O. Box 686

Soledad, CA 93960-0686). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 

4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the

summons and the complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of

this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the

summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear the cost of such service unless

good cause shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served on the date that the

waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be

required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the day on which the

request for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be

required if formal service of summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the

statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that more completely describes the

duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is

waived after the date provided in the Notice but before Defendants have been personally

served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for

waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever

is later. 

5. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, Defendants

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

claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above. 

a. If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 6 of 8
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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd 7

§ 1997e(a), Defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied Alameida v.

Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). The Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be

provided with the appropriate warning and notice under Wyatt concurrently with

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir.

2012). 

b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted,

nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any 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. 

6. 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. 

a. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment,

the Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the

appropriate warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998)

(en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Plaintiff is also 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). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a

consent by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against

Plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per

curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 7 of 8
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

Order of Partial Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.15\02469Ramirez_partial svc.wpd 8

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

8. 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. 

9. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on

Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true

copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel.

10. 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.

11. It is 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. 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).

12. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be

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

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

7/1/2015

Case 5:15-cv-02469-EJD Document 7 Filed 07/01/15 Page 8 of 8