Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03367/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03367-1/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

A second and identical copy of the amended complaint was filed December 21, 2005.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA

COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 05-3367 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

On August 18, 2005, plaintiff, an inmate at the Alameda County Jail and proceeding

pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend, and plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on

November 21, 2005.1

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

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, however, must be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

Case 3:05-cv-03367-MMC Document 11 Filed 05/12/06 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

Plaintiff does not indicate his custodial status. As plaintiff is incarcerated in a county

jail, he may be a pre-trial detainee. If so, he is entitled to analogous protections under the

Due Process Clause. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir.

1991) (en banc).

2

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 Claim

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges he was injured after being attacked by

other inmates, and that defendants “failed in their duty to protect” him from this attack. 

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In

particular, prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. Id. at 833. The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by other

inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment when two

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and

(2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate safety. Id. at 834.2

 

The foregoing allegations were included in the original complaint. The complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend, however, because no individual defendants were named, and

the allegations were insufficient to state a cognizable claim for municipal liability against the

two governmental entity defendants, namely Alameda County and the Alameda County

Sheriff’s Department. In the amended complaint, plaintiff has not named any individual

defendant, and again names Alameda County and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department. 

Such local governments are "persons" subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only where

official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Services,

436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of

constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional

right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this

Case 3:05-cv-03367-MMC Document 11 Filed 05/12/06 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

3

policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that

the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School

Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). In the amended complaint,

plaintiff alleges that the “policies of the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his

constitutional rights; reasonable measures were not taken to guarantee his safety.” Although

minimal, such allegations are sufficient to state a cognizable claim under Monell and

Plumeau against the municipal defendants for failing to protect plaintiff from harm by other

inmates. 

CONCLUSION

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

serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the amended complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the Alameda County Sheriff’s

Department. The Clerk shall also send a courtesy copy of this order and the amended

complaint to the Alameda County Counsel’s Office.

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

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. Defendants may

refile the motion filed in plaintiff’s previous case, or they may supplement or augment that

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

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 resolved by summary judgment, he 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 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 3:05-cv-03367-MMC Document 11 Filed 05/12/06 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

4

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, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (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. 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.

4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 3:05-cv-03367-MMC Document 11 Filed 05/12/06 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

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.

5. 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. 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).

6. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be

granted. However, the party making the motion for an extension of time is not relieved

from his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made

a motion for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still meet the

deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is

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

sought to be extended.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03367-MMC Document 11 Filed 05/12/06 Page 5 of 5