Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04648/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04648-4/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 Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.14\004648Smith_svc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX LILE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-04648 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANT TO FILE DISPOSITIVE

MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING

SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed the instant pro se civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with

leave to amend for failing to allege an actual injury. (Docket No. 5 at 2.) Plaintiff’s

amended complaint is now before the Court for an initial review. (Docket No. 6.)

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

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

Case 5:14-cv-04648-EJD Document 12 Filed 05/28/15 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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.14\004648Smith_svc.wpd 2

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

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Alex Lile, the SQSP mailroom supervisor, has

violated his right of access to the courts by repeatedly sending back Plaintiff’s legal

mail unprocessed. (Docket No. 6 at 4.) He alleges his lawsuit in Marin County

Superior Court, Case No. CV1400857, regarding lost property, was dismissed due to

Lile’s refusal to process his court filings in that case. 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s claim is cognizable under § 1983 as a denial of

his constitutional right to access of the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350

(1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). 

CONCLUSION

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

1. 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 second amended complaint (Docket No. 8), all attachments thereto, and a

copy of this order upon Defendant Alex Lile at San Quentin State Prison, (San

Quentin, CA 94964). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 

2. Defendant is 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 Defendant, after being notified of

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

summons, fails to do so, he will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good

Case 5:14-cv-04648-EJD Document 12 Filed 05/28/15 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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.14\004648Smith_svc.wpd 3

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

this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on the date that the waiver is

filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendant 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.) Defendant is 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 Defendant has 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. 

3. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, Defendant 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. 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. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted,

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

b. In the event Defendant files 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). 

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

Court and served on Defendant no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date

Defendant’s motion is filed. 

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

Case 5:14-cv-04648-EJD Document 12 Filed 05/28/15 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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\CR.14\004648Smith_svc.wpd 4

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 Defendant’s 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). 

5. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

6. 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. 

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

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

copy of the document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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 

5/28/2015

Case 5:14-cv-04648-EJD Document 12 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEX LILE,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:14-cv-04648-EJD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 5/28/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Jerry Smith ID: H44485

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: 5/28/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable EDWARD J. DAVILA

Case 5:14-cv-04648-EJD Document 12 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 5