Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00192/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00192-4/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

JAVIER ADRIAN ENRIQUEZ, JR.

Plaintiff,

 v.

S. POSSON, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-0192 MEJ (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) in Soledad, California filed

this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that staff at SVSP have

neglected to treat his hemorrhoid condition. The Court reviewed his original complaint and

dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which is now

before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. S.

Posson, LVN Concepcion, and medical window receptionist Kendra. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any 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 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 15 Filed 09/18/15 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

2

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. The

inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of

each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

deprivation. Id. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead

“set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Id.

at 634. 

When liberally construed, the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint state a

cognizable claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical

needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

CONCLUSION

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

form and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons,

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, copies of the amended complaint with

attachments and copies of this order on Dr. S. Posson, LVN Concepcion, and medical

window receptionist Kendra at Salinas Valley State Prison.

The Clerk also shall mail a courtesy copy of the amended complaint and a copy of this

order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 15 Filed 09/18/15 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

1

 If defendants assert that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies

as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendants must raise such argument in a motion for

summary judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d

1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir.

2003), which held that failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, should be raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion).

Such a motion should also incorporate a modified Wyatt notice in light of Albino. See Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120, n.14 (9th Cir. 2003); Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008

(9th Cir. 2012).

3

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants must

file and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion for

summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have

fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. 

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for

summary judgment).1

 

If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, defendants 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 28 days from

the date the motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding

summary judgment provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion

for summary judgment. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that 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

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 15 Filed 09/18/15 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 2

 The Rand notice provided herein does not excuse defendants’ obligation to serve said

notice again concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939.

4

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(c), 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) (en banc) (App. A).2

4. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants’

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants’ counsel. The Court may

disregard any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until

defendants’ counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document

directly to defendants, but once defendants are represented by counsel, all documents must

be mailed to counsel rather than directly to defendants.

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. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 15 Filed 09/18/15 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

5

sought to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for

this case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

September 18, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 15 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 5