Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01602/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01602-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTWION R. JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

P. LAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-01602-TSH 

ORDER OF SERVICE 

INTRODUCTION 

 Antwion Jones, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility – Central (“CTF”) in Soledad, 

California, has filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that 

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Jones has been granted 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before 

the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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 3:19-cv-01602-SI Document 4 Filed 05/01/19 Page 1 of 6
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 Californi

a

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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). 

B. Complaint 

The complaint makes the following allegations. On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff had 

surgery on the middle finger of his left hand. Approximately a week later, Jones’s finger became 

infected. Jones’s surgeon, outside doctor T. Zewert was informed, but Dr. Zewert assured Jones 

that there was no infection. On October 12, 2017, Jones was seen by Dr. Zewert for a “pin 

removal,” at which time Jones discovered that his finger was infected. In order to eliminate the 

infection, part of Jones’s finger was surgically removed. Following the surgery, Dr. Zewert 

assured Jones that he would send a note to Jones’s primary care physician, CTF doctor P. Lam, 

recommending physical therapy so that Jones could regain range of motion in his finger. In 

Jones’s subsequent follow-up medical visits with Dr. Lam, Dr. Lam repeatedly denied Jones’s 

requests for physical therapy, citing cost-effectiveness, even though Jones was unable to perform 

daily activities. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 9–10. CTF doctor Posson also denied Jones’s postCase 3:19-cv-01602-SI Document 4 Filed 05/01/19 Page 2 of 6
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 Californi

a

surgery requests for physical therapy. Compl. at 9. The failure to provide Jones with physical 

therapy resulted in Jones losing feeling and mobility in his finger. Compl. at 10. 

C. Legal Claim 

Liberally construed, Jones’s allegation that Defendants Zewert, Lam, and Posson 

deliberately refused to provide the appropriate medical treatment for his finger states a cognizable 

Eighth Amendment claim. Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an 

examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the 

defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), 

overruled in part on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s 

condition could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows 

that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take 

reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

CONCLUSION 

1. The complaint’s allegation that Dr. P. Lam, Dr. S. Posson, and Dr. T. Zewert were 

deliberately indifferent to Jones’s serious medical need and thereby caused him further injury 

states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. 

2. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order 

upon defendants Dr. P. Lam and Dr. S. Posson at Correctional Training Facility – Central, at 

Soledad Prison Road, Soledad CA, and upon defendant Dr. T. Zewert at 337 El Dorado Street, 

#A1, Monterey CA 93940. 

A courtesy copy of the complaint with attachments and this order shall also be mailed to 

the California Attorney General’s Office. 

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

Case 3:19-cv-01602-SI Document 4 Filed 05/01/19 Page 3 of 6
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 Californi

a

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, or a motion to stay as 

indicated above. 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. 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). A 

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies similarly must be 

accompanied by a Wyatt notice. Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012). 

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. 

Plaintiff also must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding motions to dismiss for nonexhaustion provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion to dismiss. 

 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. 

4. 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 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01602-SI Document 4 Filed 05/01/19 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 Californi

a

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). 

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order to dispute any 

“factual record” presented by defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). 

(The Rand and Wyatt notices above do not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve said 

notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies and motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939). 

5. 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 a defendant’s 

counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to 

defendants, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

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) or Local Rule 16 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery. 

7. 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. 

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

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

Case 3:19-cv-01602-SI Document 4 Filed 05/01/19 Page 5 of 6
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

9. 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: May 1, 2019 

 

THOMAS S. HIXSON 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01602-SI Document 4 Filed 05/01/19 Page 6 of 6