Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00348/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00348-0/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

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\6.26.2007\04-0348 Sibley348_service.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMONE C. SIBLEY,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. Meyer, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-00348 JW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE

REGARDING SUCH MOTION

(Docket Nos. 13 & 14)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”), filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against

defendants Correctional Officers M. Meyer and R. D. Wysinger of SVSP, for use of

excessive force. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 8, 2005, and, with leave of the Court,

a second amended complaint on March 9, 2006. Plaintiff was granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in an earlier order. 

///

///

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 17 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 6
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

N:\Pro - Se\6.26.2007\04-0348 Sibley348_service.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

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 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. Legal Claims

Plaintiff claims that defendant Meyer used excessive force when he continued

to pepper-spray plaintiff even after the latter had complied with Meyer’s orders to

face the wall. Plaintiff claims that he suffered injury to his eyes from the “excessive

chemical spray attack and a spine/shoulder injury from the intentional retaliatory

brutal physical handling.” (Pet. 8.) Liberally construed, the Court finds plaintiff’s

claim cognizable as a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel

and unusual punishment.

C. Defendant R. D. Wysinger

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to

each individual defendant’s conduct that proximately caused a violation of his

rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has not set

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 17 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 6
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

N:\Pro - Se\6.26.2007\04-0348 Sibley348_service.wpd 3

forth any factual allegations as to defendant Wysinger’s conduct which proximately

caused plaintiff injury. Plaintiff states that defendant Wysinger sprayed another

inmate who was present at the time of the incident, but does not allege that

Wysinger did anything to violate plaintiff’s rights. Furthermore, plaintiff does not

have standing to complain about the deprivations of the constitutional rights of

others. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410 (1991) 

D. Motions for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Nos. 13 & 14) are

denied for lack of exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015,

1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). 

CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s claims against R. D. Wysinger are DISMISSED for 

failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Nos. 13 & 14) 

are DENIED. 

3. 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, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Correctional Officer

M. Meyer. The clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order

to the California Attorney General’s Office.

4. 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 amended 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

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 17 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be

given to pro se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th

Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14.

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\6.26.2007\04-0348 Sibley348_service.wpd 4

U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion

pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied

Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). 

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 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. 

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

Court and served on defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date

defendants’ motion is filed. 

a. In the event the defendants file an unenumerated motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:1

The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground

you have not exhausted your administrative remedies. The

motion will, if granted, result in the dismissal of your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly supported by

declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you

may not simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you

must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, or documents, that contradict the facts shown

in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that

you have in fact exhausted your claims. If you do not submit

your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

b. In the event defendants file a motion for summary judgment, 

the Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to plaintiffs:

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 17 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 6
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

N:\Pro - Se\6.26.2007\04-0348 Sibley348_service.wpd 5

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 in favor of

defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be no

trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (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) (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

defendants’ 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). 

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

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

7. 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. 

8. All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 17 Filed 06/19/07 Page 5 of 6
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

N:\Pro - Se\6.26.2007\04-0348 Sibley348_service.wpd 6

defendants, or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a

true copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

9. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. No further court order is required before the parties may conduct

discovery.

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. 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).

11. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will

be granted. However, the party making the motion for an extension of time is not

relieved from his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely

by having made a motion for an extension of time. The party making the motion

must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing the motion

for an extension of time is received. Any motion for an extension of time must be

filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended.

DATED: June 19 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-00348-JW Document 17 Filed 06/19/07 Page 6 of 6