Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00072/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00072-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARON BADILLO, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION; former warden

JILL BROWN; Lieutenant

RODGRIGUEZ; Sergeant D.

FOOTMAN; Correctional Officer

FITTS; and Correctional Officer

GUTHRIE,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-0072 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE AFTER

AMENDMENT

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, a former inmate of San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the initial review order plaintiff's claim against the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was dismissed with prejudice and his

other claims, against defendants Brown and Footman, were dismissed with leave to amend. He

has amended. The court will now review the amended claims to determine whether they should

be served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2) (court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss

claims which 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). 

Case 3:06-cv-00072-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/09/07 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

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Claims 

The defendants in the original complaint were the CDCR, Brown, and Footman. In the

amended complaint on the pages provided for listing the defendants plaintiff lists Brown and 

Footman, plus Rodriguez, Fitts, and Guthrie. In his statement of the facts, however, he names

only Rodriguez and Guthrie, who he says were responsible for him and other protective custody

inmates being escorted near general population inmates. He was shot with home-made dart gun

and contends he contracted hepatitis-C as a result. This is sufficient to state a claim against

Rodriguez and Guthrie. 

As to the other defendants, plaintiff presents only generalized and conclusory

allegations, which are insufficient. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (a

complaint must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice” of the claim and the “grounds

upon which it rests.”); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) ("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."). The claims against the other defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Brown and Footman, Rodriguez, Fitts, and

Guthrie are DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Rodriguez and Guthrie may proceed. The clerk

shall issue summons and the marshal shall serve the amended complaint upon the following

defendants: Lieutenant Rodriguez and Correctional Officer Guthrie. Plaintiff states that these

defendants can be found at San Quentin State Prison.

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

a. Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive

Case 3:06-cv-00072-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/09/07 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

motion within sixty days of the date this order is entered. The motion shall be supported by

adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the

events at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior to the date their 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 defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served

upon him. 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).

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, Alameida v. Wyatt, 124 S.Ct 50 (2003).

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen

days after 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. 

4. All communications by 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.

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 plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

Case 3:06-cv-00072-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/09/07 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

Change of Address.” He also 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: July 9 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.06\BADILLO072.SRV

Case 3:06-cv-00072-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/09/07 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

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 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 3:06-cv-00072-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/09/07 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 

(EXHAUSTION) 

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you

did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents

accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or

other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and

there will be no trial.

Case 3:06-cv-00072-WHA Document 10 Filed 07/09/07 Page 6 of 6