Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02112/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02112-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Fonoti02112_service.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENI W. FONOTI,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-02112 JW (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

AND OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE

REGARDING SUCH MOTION

On July 13, 2007, plaintiff, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility, filed an amended pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against various prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) for allegedly

depriving plaintiff of his constitutional rights during his confinement at SVSP. 

Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in

an earlier order (Docket No. 5).

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

Case 5:06-cv-02112-JW Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 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

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Fonoti02112_service.wpd 2

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

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds cognizable plaintiff’s claims:

(1) that prison officials retained him in ASU without due process; (2) that placement

in the ASU amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because plaintiff is a

disabled person; (3) that prison officials conspired to deprive plaintiff of his

constitutional rights; and (4) supervisory liability. 

Plaintiff’s allegation that prison officials confiscated plaintiff’s personal

property, including cash, food items, a Sony Radio, and air mattress, does not state a

cognizable claim for relief. Neither the negligent nor intentional deprivation of

property states a due process claim under § 1983 if the deprivation was random and

unauthorized. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44 (1981) (state employee

negligently lost prisoner’s hobby kit), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v.

Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533

(1984) (intentional destruction of inmate’s property). The availability of an

adequate state post-deprivation remedy, e.g., a state tort action, precludes relief

because it provides sufficient procedural due process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494

Case 5:06-cv-02112-JW Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 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

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Fonoti02112_service.wpd 3

U.S. 113, 128 (1990). California law provides such an adequate post-deprivation

remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States 

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the July 13, 2007

amended complaint in this matter, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order

upon Associate Warden D. Travers, Captain G. Lewis, Lieutenant J. Hughes,

and Lieutenant T. Billings at the Salinas Valley State Prison. The clerk shall also

mail courtesy copies of the July 13, 2007 amended complaint and this order to the

California Attorney General’s Office.

2. 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

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

Case 5:06-cv-02112-JW Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 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

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Fonoti02112_service.wpd 4

resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date

the summary judgment motion is due. 

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

Court and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) 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:

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

Case 5:06-cv-02112-JW Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 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

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Fonoti02112_service.wpd 5

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). 

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

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

5. 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. 

6. All communications by the 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.

7. 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 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

8. 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

Case 5:06-cv-02112-JW Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 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

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\Fonoti02112_service.wpd 6

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).

9. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to

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

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

October 12, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-02112-JW Document 10 Filed 10/12/07 Page 6 of 6