Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03538/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03538-0/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

JAMES DAVID WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03538-YGR (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Training Facility (“CTF”),

has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. 

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred in 

CTF, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In his complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Secretary Scott Kernan; CTF Warden S. Hatton; CTF 

Correctional Lieutenant V. Khan; CTF Sergeants Kelly and John Doe; CTF Correctional Officers 

Z. Brown, S. Patterson, and John Doe; and CTF Appeals Coordinator Truett. Plaintiff seeks

injunctive relief and monetary damages.

II. 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. 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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1988). 

Case 4:17-cv-03538-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 6
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 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. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims

1. Eighth Amendment Claim

Plaintiff claims that on June 29, 2016, Defendants Brown and Patterson, along with two 

unidentified prison officials from the Investigative Services Unit (“I.S.U.”) (i.e., “John Doe 

(I.S.U.)” and “unidentified Supervising Sgt. John Doe”), subjected him to “cruel and unusual 

sexual invasion of privacy [and] sexual misconduct” when they forced him to do an “open-public 

full body strip search . . . [t]hen a rectum/cavity search.” Dkt. 1 at 3. Furthermore, Defendant 

Patterson, who is a female officer, was present during the search and took “sexually suggestive 

photographs” of Plaintiff while he was partially nude. Id. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant 

Brown laughed at him during the cavity search. Id. at 5. Plaintiff adds that Defendants did not 

explain “the purpose of the photos . . . nor what authorize[d] them” to take such photos. Id.

Plaintiff claims that after he reported the incident, an investigation was conducted by 

Defendants Khan, Truett, and Kelly. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff claims that their investigation was 

“flawed” and that they “covered up the conduct that occurred.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Hatton “failed to correct this underground conduct of I.S.U. 

staff, and continues to allow this treatment to occur . . . .” Id. Plaintiff adds that Defendant 

Kernan “denied correction and training of these rouge actions of CTF Staff . . . violating Plaintiff 

[by] continuing to use female staff to conduct unsecure, non-emergency strip searches of male 

inmates (cross-gender).” Id.

Plaintiff claims that such treatment of inmates has violated his constitutional rights and that 

female correctional officers are still being allowed to take partially nude photographs of male 

inmates. Id. at 6. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state cognizable 

claims for the violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. See Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. 

Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of 

Case 4:17-cv-03538-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 6
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

Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2017).

2. Claims Against Doe Defendants

Plaintiff identifies “John Doe (I.S.U.)” and “unidentified Supervising Sgt. John Doe”

whose names he intends to learn through discovery. The use of Doe Defendants is not favored in 

the Ninth Circuit. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, where 

the identity of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint the plaintiff 

should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify them. Id. Failure to afford the 

plaintiff such an opportunity is error. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 

1999). Accordingly, the claims against these Doe Defendants are DISMISSED from this action 

without prejudice. Should Plaintiff learn these Doe Defendants’ identities through discovery, he 

may move to file an amended complaint to add them as named defendants. See Brass v. County of 

Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir. 2003).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants.

2. The claims against the Doe Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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 

(dkt. 1) and all attachments thereto and a copy of this Order to: CDCR Secretary Scott Kernan; 

CTF Warden S. Hatton; CTF Correctional Lieutenant V. Khan; CTF Sergeant Kelly; CTF

Correctional Officers Z. Brown and S. Patterson; and CTF Appeals Coordinator Truett. 

The Clerk of the Court 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.

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 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 

Case 4:17-cv-03538-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 6
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

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. 

5. 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 ninety (90) days from the date their answer is due, Defendants 

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

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

Civil Procedure 56. 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 sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants’ motion 

is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to pro se plaintiffs 

facing a summary judgment motion:

The defendant has made 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 

Case 4:17-cv-03538-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 6
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

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 [in favor of the defendants], your case 

will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (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 because he bears the burden of proving his allegations in this case, he 

must be prepared to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files his opposition 

to Defendants’ dispositive motion. Such evidence may include sworn declarations from himself 

and other witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn declaration. 

Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment simply by repeating the allegations of his 

complaint.

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than thirty (30) days after the 

date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

Case 4:17-cv-03538-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 5 of 6
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

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). 

9. 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 5, 2018

Case 4:17-cv-03538-YGR Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 Page 6 of 6