Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05574/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05574-4/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL P. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

 Defendant.

___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5574 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY; DIRECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFF

(Docket Nos. 41, 42 & 46)

On November 11, 2007, plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican

Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various PBSP employees were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Now before the Court are 

(1) defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against defendants N. Grannis (“Grannis”) and

R. Pimental (“Pimental”) (Docket No. 42), and (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

(Docket No. 46).

A. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move to dismiss the claims against defendants Grannis and Pimental,

(Docket No. 42), the individuals who are alleged to have reviewed plaintiff’s prison

grievances in their respective roles as Chief of Inmate Appeals for the Department of

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 47 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 6
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

Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Appeals Examiner and Facility Captain for Pelican Bay

State Prison. Defendants bring such motion, pursuant to Rule 12(b)96) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, on the ground that plaintiff has no constitutional right to an

administrative appeal or grievance system. 

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted if the complaint does not proffer “enough facts to

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly, 127 S. Ct

1955, 1974 (2007). The court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in

the complaint,” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), but need not accept as true

allegations that are legal conclusions, unwarranted deductions of fact or unreasonable

inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988, amended, 275 F.3d

1187 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica

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

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must construe the complaint in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all factual allegations as true. See Cahill v. Liberty

Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Federal courts are particularly liberal in

construing allegations made in pro se civil rights complaints. See Thompson v. Davis, 295

F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may not

consider any material outside the complaint but may consider exhibits attached thereto. See

Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(c) (treating exhibits attached to complaint as part of complaint for purposes of

12(b)(6) motion). 

An administrator may be liable for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need if,

for example, he or she fails to respond to a prisoner’s request for help. See Jett v. Penner,

439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, plaintiff has alleged that Grannis and Pimental

violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they failed to properly

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 47 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 6
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

investigate plaintiff’s complaints that he was receiving constitutionally inadequate health

care at the hands of the other defendants. By such allegation, plaintiff has pleaded, given the

standard for administrative liability set forth in Jett, “enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied, and defendants will be

directed to file a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, if defendants are of the

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, to so inform the Court prior

to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

B. Motion to Compel 

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery (Docket No. 46). To date, however,

the majority of defendants remain unserved, Grannis and Pimental being the sole exceptions. 

Accordingly, as to the unserved defendants, plaintiff’s motion for discovery will be

denied without prejudice as premature. As to Grannis and Pimental, the motion likewise will

be denied without prejudice, as there is no indication that plaintiff has fulfilled the meet and

confer requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(A). 

C. Unserved Defendants

As noted above, no defendants other than Grannis and Pimental have been served. In

particular, defendants Flowers, Risenhoover, Sayre, Kravitz, and McLean remain unserved. 

(See Docket Nos. 31–35.) 

In cases wherein the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the “officers of the court

shall issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The Court must appoint the Marshal

to effect service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), and the Marshal, upon order of the Court, must

serve the summons and the complaint, see Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.

1994). Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely

on service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate

such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate

defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” 

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 47 Filed 03/01/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Here, plaintiff’s complaint has been pending for over 120 days, and, consequently,

absent a showing of “good cause,” is subject to dismissal without prejudice as to the

unserved defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Because plaintiff has not provided sufficient

information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve the above-referenced additional five

defendants, plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of his claims against them. 

See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421–22 (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official

should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided

Marshal with sufficient information to effectuate service). 

Accordingly, plaintiff must either himself serve the unserved defendants with the

summons and complaint, or provide the Court with an accurate current location such that the

Marshal is able to serve such defendants. If plaintiff fails to effectuate service, or provide the

Court with an accurate current location for such defendants, within thirty days of the date this

order is filed, plaintiff’s claims against the unserved defendants will be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. (Docket Nos. 41 & 42.)

2. Within sixty (60) days of the date this order is filed, defendants shall file a motion

for summary judgment with respect to the above-referenced cognizable claim.

a. 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. 

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment shall be filed

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

defendants’ motion is filed. 

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

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 47 Filed 03/01/10 Page 4 of 6
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

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). 

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

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. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is hereby DENIED. (Docket No. 46.)

4. Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall either himself

serve the unserved defendants with the summons and complaint, or provide the Court with an

accurate current location such that the Marshal is able to serve said defendants.

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 47 Filed 03/01/10 Page 5 of 6
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

 Docket No. 41 was superseded by Docket No. 42. 

6

This order terminates Docket Nos. 41, 42 & 46.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2010

____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 47 Filed 03/01/10 Page 6 of 6