Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01673/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01673-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISIAH LUCAS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LT. SILVA, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 07-1673 CW (PR)

ORDER REVIEWING AMENDMENT TO

COMPLAINT; REQUIRING SERVICE

ON DEFENDANT I. GUERRA; AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR

DEFENDANT GUERRA'S DISPOSITIVE

MOTION

Plaintiff Isiah Lucas, Jr., a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), has filed the

present pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that prison officials at the Correctional Training

Facility (CTF) were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs while he was incarcerated there in 2006. 

On October 28, 2009, the Court issued an Order of Service. 

Because Plaintiff had not been incarcerated at CTF since 2006, his

claims for injunctive relief from the conditions of his confinement

at CTF were DISMISSED as moot. The Court found a cognizable Eighth

Amendment claim against Defendants CTF Warden Ben Curry, Sergeant

M. Miranda, Lieutenant Silva and Captain Jarvis for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs, stating:

The fact that Plaintiff was issued a medical chrono --

permitting him to be assigned to a lower bunk --

supports an inference that Plaintiff had a serious

medical need for this accommodation. Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference

because they ignored his chrono and were responsible for

assigning him to an upper bunk for a period of eighty

days, during which he suffered "pain/agony." The

allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a

COGNIZABLE claim for deliberate indifference to

Plaintiff's serious medical needs against Defendants

Curry, Miranda, Silva and Jarvis.

(Oct. 28, 2009 Order at 4.) The Court ordered service of the

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 8
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

complaint on Defendants Curry, Miranda, Silva and Jarvis. All

claims against the Defendant group of "all employees" at CTF were

dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant CTF

Captain I. Guerra was dismissed with leave to amend. The Court

gave Plaintiff until November 28, 2009 to file an amendment to the

complaint. He was warned the failure to do so would result in

dismissal of his claims against Defendant Guerra. 

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his amendment to the complaint.

In an Order dated April 7, 2010, the Court granted Defendants

Curry, Miranda, Silva and Jarvis a sixty-day extension of time,

until June 7, 2010, to file their motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

The Court now reviews the amendment to the complaint to

determine whether it states cognizable claims for relief.

In the amendment, Plaintiff states that "Defendant Guerra was

aware of Plaintiff's medical condition and the fact that Plaintiff

had a medical chrono . . . as she signed-off onto that of a CDCR

Appeal Log No.: CTF-C-06-01425 as the SECOND LEVEL

REVIEWER . . . ." (Am. to Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff is suing

Defendant Guerra because she had the power and authority to remedy

the alleged constitutional violation, but elected not to act and

thus allowed the constitutional violation to continue. Read

liberally, the allegations in Plaintiff's amendment to the

complaint state a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against

Defendant Guerra. Therefore, this claim may proceed against

Defendant Guerra, who shall abide by the briefing schedule outlined

below.

In his amendment, Plaintiff also clarifies that when he named

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 8
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

"all employees" at CTF in his original complaint, he was referring

to "all who was involved herein Plaintiff's matter, such as 'Tier

Officers' that is [sic] too responsible for the assigning bunks to

inmates." (Am. to Compl. at 3.) Thus, it seems that Plaintiff is

referring to several unidentified defendants involved in alleged

Eighth Amendment violation. Suing unidentified defendants is not

favored in the Ninth Circuit. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, where defendants' identity

cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff

should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify them. 

See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Accordingly, the claims against the unidentified defendants are

DISMISSED without prejudice. Should Plaintiff learn their

identities, he may move to file a second amendment to the complaint

to add them as named defendants. See Brass v. County of Los

Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its October

28, 2009 Order dismissing as moot his injunctive relief claims

because the relief is "not merely requested for the Plaintiff, but

for the entire inmate population" at CTF. (Am. to Compl. at 1.) 

He states:

. . . Plaintiff observed that there was a [plethora] of

inmates which suffered from the same which Plaintiff did

. . . the reason was simply due to staff not willing to

house Close Custody Inmates nowhere other than two (2)

wings only, which is primarily 'D & E Wings' only --

when there is at the lease [sic] -- ten (10) other wings

which could accomondate [sic] Close Custody Inmates and

could alleviate the so call [sic] shortage of bottombunks. 

(Id. at 2 (brackets in original.) However, as a matter of law, pro

se prisoner plaintiffs are not able to represent fairly or to

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 8
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

protect adequately the interests of a class. See Oxendine v.

Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); Griffin v. Smith,

493 F. Supp. 129, 131 (W.D.N.Y. 1980). "[A] litigant appearing in

propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than

himself." Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir.

1962). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for

reconsideration of the Court's October 28, 2009 Order dismissing as

moot his injunctive relief claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The allegations in Plaintiff's amendment to the complaint

state a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Defendant

Guerra.

2. Plaintiff's claims against the unidentified defendants

are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the Court's

October 28, 2009 Order dismissing as moot his injunctive relief

claims is DENIED.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and

Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver

of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint and all attachments

thereto (docket no. 1), a copy of the amendment to the complaint

and all attachments thereto (docket No. 20), as well as a copy of

this Order to CTF Captain I. Guerra. The Clerk of the Court shall

also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order to the

State Attorney General's Office in San Francisco. Additionally,

the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 8
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

5. Defendant Guerra is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure requires her to cooperate in saving

unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendant Guerra, after being notified of

this action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to

waive service of the summons, fails to do so, she will be required

to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for

their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant Guerra had been

served on the date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant

to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), she will not be required to serve and file an

answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request

for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than

would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) 

Defendant Guerra is asked to read the statement set forth at the

foot of the waiver form that more completely describes the duties

of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If

service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before

Defendant Guerra has been personally served, the Answer shall be

due sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver

was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is

filed, whichever is later. 

6. Defendant Guerra shall answer the complaint in accordance

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following briefing

schedule shall govern dispositive motion filed by Defendant Guerra

in this action:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date

Defendant Guerra's answer is due, she shall file a motion for

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 8
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

6

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. In the alternative,

the Attorney-General may address the claims against her in the

motion for summary judgment he will file on behalf of the coDefendants. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual

documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56. If Defendant Guerra is of the opinion that

this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, she 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 Defendant Guerra no

later than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendant

Guerra's motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the

following notice should be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a

summary judgment motion:

The defendant has 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

defendant's declarations and documents and show that

there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 6 of 8
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

G:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Lucas1673.revAM2compl&serveGuerra.frm 7

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 the

defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will

be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (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)

(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 because he bears the

burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared

to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files

his opposition to Defendant Guerra's dispositive motion. Such

evidence may include sworn declarations from himself and other

witnesses to the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by

sworn declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary

judgment simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

c. If Defendant Guerra wishes to file a reply brief, she

shall do so no later than thirty (30) days after the date

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.

7. Defendants Curry, Miranda, Silva and Jarvis shall abide

by the briefing schedule governing dispositive motions filed in the

Court's April 7, 2010 Order. Their counsel may address the claims

against Defendant Guerra in this motion as well.

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 7 of 8
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

G:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Lucas1673.revAM2compl&serveGuerra.frm 8

8. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 5/6/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01673-CW Document 26 Filed 05/06/10 Page 8 of 8