Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01352/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01352-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DEAN PARKS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

T. PETERSON, R.N., and REYES, M.D, 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-1352 EMC (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

I. INTRODUCTION

Steven Dean Parks, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. §

1915A.

II. BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Parks alleges the following: He was transferred from a prison in Corcoran

to San Quentin State Prison on April 5, 2011. While at the prison in Corcoran, a prison doctor had

issued a "chrono" (i.e., a permission slip) requiring him to have a lower bunk bed. Upon Parks'

arrival at San Quentin, Dr. Reyes refused to honor the lower bunk chrono or renew the chrono. T.

Peterson, a registered nurse, helped deprive him of the lower bunk bed by falsely writing that he

failed to cooperate when he attempted to obtain the chrono by filing an inmate appeal.

III. DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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. 

Case 3:12-cv-01352-EMC Document 4 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 5
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

§ 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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro

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

(9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988).

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth

Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A prison official violates the Eighth

Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively,

sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s

health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim against Defendants

Reyes and Peterson for deliberate indifference to Parks' medical needs. These Defendants allegedly

caused Parks not to receive the lower bunk bed he earlier had been permanently authorized to have. 

Although her actions apparently occurred in the administrative appeal process, nurse

Peterson's potential liability is for the alleged Eighth Amendment violation. The Due Process

Clause does not provide a separate source of potential liability for her. There is no constitutional

right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system in California. See Ramirez v. Galaza,

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Antonelli v.

Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1. Parks had no

federal constitutional right to a properly functioning appeal system. An incorrect decision on an

administrative appeal or failure to handle it in a particular way therefore did not amount to a

violation of his right to due process.

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-01352-EMC Document 4 Filed 06/18/12 Page 2 of 5
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

IV. CONCLUSION

1. The complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim against Dr. Reyes and nurse Peterson 

for deliberate indifference to Parks' medical needs. All other Defendants and claims are dismissed.

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

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the amended complaint and a copy of all the documents

in the case file upon the following individuals, both of whom apparently work on the medical staff at

San Quentin State Prison: (1) Dr. Reyes, and (2) T. Peterson, R.N. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than August 31, 2012, Defendants must file 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, Defendant must so inform the Court prior to the date the

motion is due.

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 September 28, 2012. Plaintiff

must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as he prepares his

opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants [may make] a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek 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 defendants' 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).) 

Case 3:12-cv-01352-EMC Document 4 Filed 06/18/12 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiff also should take note that a Defendant may file a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies instead of, or in addition to, a motion for summary judgment. A motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted,

result in the termination of the action. The plaintiff must “develop a record” and present it in his

opposition to dispute any “factual record” presented by a defendant’s motion to dismiss. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than October 12, 2012.

4. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on a 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 a Defendant's

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

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

directly to that Defendant. 

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.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:12-cv-01352-EMC Document 4 Filed 06/18/12 Page 4 of 5
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

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

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

8. Plaintiff should attempt to write more neatly on future filings – some of the writing

on the complaint and attachments was difficult to read. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2012

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-01352-EMC Document 4 Filed 06/18/12 Page 5 of 5