Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04133/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04133-0/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

No. C 14-4133 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 1/13/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JAMES HARVEY,

aka ABDUL SHAKUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. BURRIS, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-4133 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE;

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION

This federal civil rights action was filed by a pro se state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The complaint is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Having concluded that the complaint (Docket No. 1) states one cognizable claim, defendants

are directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion on or before April

15, 2015, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants are to

adhere to the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order. 

The cognizable claim may be untimely, the underlying events having occurred in

2010. Defendants may wish to consider whether a motion to dismiss on grounds of

untimeliness is the most appropriate initial action. If defendants so conclude, they may

file such a motion, but they are not required to do so. 

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. 

Case 3:14-cv-04133-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 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

No. C 14-4133 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

2

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 is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that (1) in 2010, Pelican Bay Correctional Officers (“PBCO”) T.L.

Scott, Sergeant Hallock, Lieutenant Thompson, and Lieutenant R.L. Greaves violated his

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in a contraband cell without cause

and issuing a false disciplinary report for failing to comply with the officers’ instructions; (2)

PBCO K. Morgan and W. Anthony violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating an

incoming letter; (3) PBCO Tucker and R. Tupy violated his First Amendment rights by

confiscating a letter; (4) Captain Puget violated his First Amendment rights by approving the

confiscation of his mail; (5) PBCO J. McPheison violated his First Amendment rights by

confiscating his mail; (6) California Department Corrections Director M. Stainer violated his

Case 3:14-cv-04133-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 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

No. C 14-4133 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

3

First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by transferring him to administrative

segregation without cause; (7) PBCO J. Pieren and D. Barneburg violated his First

Amendment rights by confiscating a pamphlet he wrote; (8) PBCO S. Burris and D.

Barneburg violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating an outgoing letter; 

(9) S. Burris and J. Frisk violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating an incoming

letter; and (10) S. Burris and B. Patton violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating

an outgoing letter. Liberally construed, Claim 1 is cognizable under § 1983. 

Claims 2–10 are DISMISSED without prejudice because they are unrelated by fact or

law to the first claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and 20. If plaintiff wishes to pursue relief for

Claims 2–10, he must file a separate civil rights action for each claim. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter (Docket No.

1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the following correctional officers

at Pelican Bay State Prison: T.L. Scott, Sergeant Hallock, Lieutenant Thompson, and

Lieutenant R.L. Greaves. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this

order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

2. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants 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. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

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

defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by Albino v. Baca, 747

F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).

b. 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

Case 3:14-cv-04133-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 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

No. C 14-4133 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

4

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any 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. 

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

served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ motion is

filed. 

4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

5. 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. All communications by the 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.

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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. 

10. A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs

be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939–41 (9th Cir.

Case 3:14-cv-04133-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 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

No. C 14-4133 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

5

2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they file and

serve any motion for summary judgment:

The defendants have 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 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 13, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04133-RS Document 9 Filed 01/13/15 Page 5 of 5