Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03780/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03780-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL WOODS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03780-YGR (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN 

CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 

FILING IN EASTERN DISTRICT; 

SERVING COGNIZABLE CLAIMS; 

AND DISMISSING REMAINING 

CLAIMS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) filed 

a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. He seeks monetary damages. 

He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 8.

Plaintiff has named the following Defendants at PBSP: Chief Executive Office (“CEO”) at 

the California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) Bill Woods; Chief of Health Care at 

CCHCS S. Gates; and Doctors Sue Risenhoover, Maria Bostanjian, Devinder Kumar, and Laurie 

Thomas. He also names the following Defendants at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) Doctors

Theodore D. Utecht, Jonathan Akanno, and L. Krzysiak.

The Court now conducts its initial review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to some of the claims in his Complaint are 

alleged to have occurred at PBSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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. § 1915A(a). 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 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 7
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

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).

B. Legal Claims

1. Claims Against Defendants at KVSP

Plaintiff complains of various problems during his incarceration at KVSP. Because KVSP 

is located within the venue of the Eastern District of California, these claims are DISMISSED 

without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling them in a new civil rights action in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California. See In re Hall, 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(dismissal on venue grounds without prejudice).

2. Remaining Claims Against Defendants at PBSP

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that (1) Defendants Risenhoover, Bostanjian, Kumar, 

and Thomas delayed for seven years “in treating the Plaintiff’s mild peripheral blood 

eosinophilia,” which “has resulted in the extensive degeneration of his colon . . . ;” and 

(2) Defendants Risenhoover, Bostanjian, Kumar, Thomas, Woods and Gates delayed for four 

years in “evaluating and treating the Plaintiff[’s] elevated bilirubin level,” which “le[d] to a 

negative reaction to supplements, fingernail discoloration, d[e]formaties, infections and pain . . . .”

Dkt. 1 at 5-17.

1

Plaintiff has sued all named Defendants individually and in their official capacities seeking 

monetary relief. Dkt. 1 at 1. “[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be 

treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). Unless 

waived, the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court award of damages against a state, state 

agency, or state official sued in an official capacity. Id. at 169. As there has been no waiver here, 

Plaintiff’s claims against the named Defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages 

is DISMISSED with prejudice.

 

1 Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Plaintiff.

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff names Defendants Woods (the CEO of the CCHCS) and Gates (Chief of Health 

Care at CCHCS), but Plaintiff does not claim that these Defendants personally violated his 

constitutional rights. Rather, Plaintiff seems to contend that these Defendants are liable based on 

the conduct of their subordinates—the remaining Defendants named above. Respondeat superior 

liability is not available under section 1983. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 

1989). Instead, Plaintiff must allege that the supervisory liability Defendants “participated in or 

directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. Here, no 

facts are alleged to establish supervisorial liability on the part of Defendants Woods and Gates. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims against Defendants Woods and Gates are 

DISMISSED without prejudice.

Meanwhile, Claim 1 and 2 against the remaining Defendants, when liberally construed, are 

cognizable under section 1983 and shall proceed. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claims relating to all problems during his incarceration at KVSP are 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling them in a new civil rights action in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining named Defendants in their official 

capacities for monetary damages are DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims against Defendants Woods and Gates are 

DISMISSED without prejudice.

4. Claims 1 and 2 against the remaining Defendants have been found to be 

cognizable, as described above.

5. 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 

and all attachments thereto, (dkt. 1) and a copy of this Order to the following Defendants at PBSP: 

Doctors Sue Risenhoover, Maria Bostanjian, Devinder Kumar, and Laurie Thomas. The 

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 7
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

Clerk shall also mail a copy of the Complaint and a copy of this Order to the California State 

Attorney General’s Office. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

6. 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 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 be 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 date 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. 

7. Defendants shall answer the Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date their answer is due, Defendants 

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion must be 

supported by adequate factual documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from 

the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand2notice 

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, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out 

 

2 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 7
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

in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss 

for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice. 

However, the Court notes that under the new law of the circuit, in the rare event that a failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, Defendants may move for dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) as opposed to the previous practice of moving under an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (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, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“PLRA”), should be 

raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Otherwise if a failure to exhaust is 

not clear on the face of the complaint, Defendants must produce evidence proving failure to 

exhaust in a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. If undisputed evidence viewed in 

the light most favorable to Plaintiff shows a failure to exhaust, Defendants are entitled to summary 

judgment under Rule 56. Id. But if material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be 

denied and the district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts in a preliminary 

proceeding. Id. at 1168.

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 the summary judgment motion is due. All papers 

filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date on which 

Defendants’ motion is filed. 

c. 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 

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 7
6

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

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 contradicts 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, 154 

F.3d at 962-63.

Plaintiff also is advised that -- in the rare event that Defendants argue that the failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the Complaint -- a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. To avoid dismissal, you have the right to present any evidence to show that you did 

exhaust your available administrative remedies before coming to federal court. Such evidence 

may include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed under penalty of perjury by you or 

others who have personal knowledge of relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents --

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; (3) statements 

in your Complaint insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you 

have personal knowledge of the matters state therein. As mentioned above, in considering a 

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust under Rule 12(b)(6) or failure to exhaust in a summary 

judgment motion under Rule 56, the district judge may hold a preliminary proceeding and decide 

disputed issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168.

(The notices above do not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve similar notices again 

concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies and 

motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935.)

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

date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

e. 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.

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 7
7

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

8. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to 

depose Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

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

their counsel, once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to them.

10. 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. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 

while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 

address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 

directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and 

(2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro

se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 

11. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

January 31, 2020

Case 4:19-cv-03780-YGR Document 9 Filed 01/31/20 Page 7 of 7