Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

VINCENT JACOBO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSS MIRKARIMI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05185-JSC 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND 

OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against the San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the San Francisco 

Sheriff’s Department, and four Sheriff’s Department employees working at the jail. On February 

2, 2015, the claims that the four jail employees used excessive force against Plaintiff were found 

cognizable, but the claims against Mirkarimi and the Sheriff’s Department were dismissed with 

leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in which he omits claims against the 

Sheriff’s Department and Mirkarimi and reiterates the excessive force claims against the four jail 

employees. Plaintiff was advised that the amended complaint would completely replace the 

original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), and that the 

claims against the Sheriff’s Department and Mirkarimi would be dismissed if they were not cured 

in the amended complaint. Because the claims against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department 

and Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi are not included in the amended complaint, they are DISMISSED.

The allegations in the amended complaint, when liberally construed, state cognizable 

claims against Lieutenant Minor, Deputy Neu, Deputy Jones, and Deputy Gray for using excessive 

force against him. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form and 

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 9 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction consent form, a copy of the amended complaint with any attachments, and copies of 

this Order and the Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend (docket number 6) on 

Lieutenant Minor, Deputy Neu, Deputy Jones, and Deputy Gray at the San Francisco County 

Sheriff’s Department. 

The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent 

form, a copy of the amended complaint with any attachments, and copies of this Order and the 

Order of Partial Dismissal with Leave to Amend (docket number 6) to the San Francisco City 

Attorney’s Office. 

2. Each of these Defendants shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction 

consent form within the deadline provided on the form. 

3. Defendants shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case:

 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is issued, 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, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 

events at issue. 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. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendants shall also serve, on a 

separate paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the 

Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 

Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him 

pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 9 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is 

filed. 

e. 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. 

5. 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.

6. 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) is required before the parties 

may conduct discovery.

7. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also 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). Reasonable requests for an extensions of a deadline will be allowed upon a 

showing of good cause and provided the request is filed prior to the deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015

____________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 9 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If Defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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 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, your case will be 

dismissed and there will be no trial.

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 9 Filed 04/06/15 Page 4 of 4