Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04172/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04172-1/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 1

 Plaintiff spelled Defendant Shimaura's name as "Shamura" in

his complaint. Clerk’s staff has confirmed that the correct

spelling is "Shimaura."

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE D. JONES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFF

MICHAEL HENNESSEY, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 08-04172 CW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants used

excessive force against him and were deliberately indifferent to

his serious medical needs. 

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis has

been granted. He has since paid the full filing fee.

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim

are alleged to have occurred at the San Francisco County Jail

(SFCJ), which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b).

In his complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants:

SFCJ Sheriff Michael Hennessey; SFCJ Sergeants McCollough (#1390)

and Threats (#707); and SFCJ Deputies Laval (#1559) and Shimaura1

(#1566). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 9
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

2

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). 

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). 

II. Legal Claims

A. Excessive Force

A prisoner has the right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment, including physical abuse by guards. Whenever prison

officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is

whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or

restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (citing Whitley v.

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 317 (1986)). 

Plaintiff alleges that on March 11, 2008, he was subjected to

excessive force by Defendant Laval. Specifically, Defendant Laval

took Plaintiff to an "isolated area" and "became enraged striking,

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 9
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

punching, kicking [Plaintiff], and poking his finger in

[Plaintiff's] eye sockets." (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff claims that

he was handcuffed during the "violent beating." (Compl., Attach.

at 1.) He alleges that he sustained injuries as a result of this

incident. 

Plaintiff alleges Defendants McCollough, Threats and Shimaura

are liable for failing to intervene and for "covering up assault

inflicted by Deputy Laval." (Id.)

Liberally construed, Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Laval, McCollough,

Threats and Shimaura. 

B. Deliberate Indifference Claim

Plaintiff's allegations also state a claim for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the

Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled

on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771

(9th Cir. 1986). A determination of "deliberate indifference"

involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the

prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response

to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. A "serious" medical

need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain." Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at

104). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 9
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

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and

disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate

it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Plaintiff states that he suffered from "significant injuries

to [his] shoulder, knee and hip." (Compl., Attach at 1.). 

Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff with medical treatment for

his injuries. 

Plaintiff has adequately pled cognizable claims against

Defendants Laval, McCollough, Threats and Shimaura for the use of

excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 

C. Supervisory Liability

In addition to naming Defendants Laval, McCollough, Threats

and Shimaura, Plaintiff also names Defendant Hennessey on the basis

of supervisory liability.

A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of

(1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a

sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful

conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San

Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation

omitted). Here, Plaintiff has alleged neither. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's supervisory liability claim against

Defendant Hennessey is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff

may file an amendment to the complaint alleging supervisory

liability under the standards explained above. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for

the use of excessive force and for deliberate indifference to

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 4 of 9
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

5

serious medical needs against Defendants Laval, McCollough, Threats

and Shimaura.

2. Plaintiff's supervisory liability claim against Defendant

Hennessey is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as indicated above.

3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order

Plaintiff may file an amended supervisory liability claim against

Defendant Hennessey as set forth above in Section II(C) of this

Order. (Plaintiff shall resubmit only that claim and not the

entire complaint.) The failure to do so will result in the

dismissal without prejudice of the supervisory liability claim

against Defendant Hennessey.

4. 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 and all attachments

thereto (docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to SFCJ Sergeant

McCollough (#1390) and Threats (#707) as well as SFCJ Deputies

Laval (#1559) and Shimaura (#1566). The Clerk of the Court shall

also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order

to the San Francisco County Counsel's Office. Additionally, the

Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

5. 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 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

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 5 of 9
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

6

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. 

6. 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

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 6 of 9
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

7

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 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

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 7 of 9
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.08\Jones4172.service.wpd 8

declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall

do so 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

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.

10. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:5/7/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 8 of 9
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

P:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.08\Jones4172.service.wpd 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE D. JONES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SF SHERIFF’S DEPT. et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-04172 CW 

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 May 7, 2010, 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.

Theodore Dwayne Jones G18819

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94964

Dated: May 7, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-04172-CW Document 9 Filed 05/07/10 Page 9 of 9