Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06977/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06977-2/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY 

SHERIFF'S DEPT.; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-6977 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Gabriel Hernandez, currently an inmate at the Kern Valley State Prison, filed a pro se

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning acts and omissions that occurred at the

Santa Clara County Jail when he was housed there in 2005. Upon initial review, the court

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, giving specific guidance as to the deficiencies that

needed to be cured. Order of Dismissal With Leave To Amend, pp. 3-6. Hernandez did not file

an amended complaint by the deadline. After waiting several more months and receiving

nothing from Hernandez, the court then dismissed all the claims in the complaint except a due

process claim. Order Of Partial Dismissal And For Amendment, p. 1. As to the due process

claim, the court explained that Hernandez had to file an amendment to complaint to inform the

court whether he was a convict or pretrial detainee, as his status made a difference as to whether

the complaint stated a claim for a due process violation. Id at 2. 

Hernandez then filed a declaration, a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and

an amendment to complaint on January 14, 2008. He explained therein that he was a pretrial

detainee at the time of the acts and omissions alleged in the complaint. In his motion for leave

Case 3:06-cv-06977-SI Document 15 Filed 07/01/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1

If Hernandez wants to pursue claims about events at Kern Valley State Prison, he may

file a complaint in the proper venue (i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

California) after he exhausts administrative remedies. Such claims would not be proper in this

action because they would not satisfy the permissive joinder requirements of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 20. Hernandez also should bear in mind that, to establish a claim for any

violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner-plaintiff must show that he suffered an

actual injury as discussed in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). 

2

to file an amended complaint, Hernandez stated that he was prevented by prison staff at Kern

Valley from timely filing the amended complaint and that the staff at Kern Valley was harassing

him. It is unclear to the court whether the motion for leave to file an amended complaint

pertained to the amendment that he filed with the motion, or was a request to further amend. The

motion for leave to amend was unnecessary insofar as it requested permission to file the

amendment to the complaint because the court already had ordered Hernandez to file that

amendment. If, on the other hand, Hernandez meant that he wanted to further amend, his motion

was deficient because a proposed amended complaint was not submitted with the motion or in

the six months since the motion was filed.1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that

leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires" but the court cannot make that

determination without seeing the proposed new pleading. See Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360,

374 (3d Cir. 2000) ("Obviously, without this draft complaint, the District Court cannot evaluate

the merits of a plaintiff's request . . . [T]he court had nothing upon which to exercise its

discretion.") The motion for leave to amend is DENIED without prejudice. 

As of now, the operative pleading is the complaint, as amended by the amendment to the

complaint. Hernandez has stated a claim for a due process violation based on his placement in

a single cell for 15 days as punishment when he was a pretrial detainee at the Elmwood facility

of the Santa Clara County jail. Hernandez alleged that he was put in a single cell from

December 11, 2005 through December 25, 2005 as punishment by Santa Clara County

correction officers Taylor and Hendericks. Complaint, p. 11; see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

535-37 (1979). Service of process will be ordered on these two defendants. 

Case 3:06-cv-06977-SI Document 15 Filed 07/01/08 Page 2 of 4
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

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants

Taylor and Hendericks for a due process violation. All other claims and defendants are

dismissed.

2. The clerk shall issue summonses and the United States Marshal shall serve,

without prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of all the

documents in the case file upon defendants, all of whom allegedly are employed by the Santa

Clara County Department of Corrections and work at the Elmwood facility: (1) correction officer

Taylor and (2) correction officer Hendericks.

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

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than September 12, 2008, 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, they 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 defendants no later than October 24, 2008.

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. (See Rand v.

Case 3:06-cv-06977-SI Document 15 Filed 07/01/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

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

served no later than November 7, 2008.

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. 

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's motion to amend is DENIED. (Docket # 13.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2008 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06977-SI Document 15 Filed 07/01/08 Page 4 of 4