Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00857/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00857-3/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DOUGLAS COLLETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSSELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00857-KAW 

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM 

AGAINST SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; 

SERVING COGNIZABLE CLAIM 

AGAINST DEPUTY KIMZEY; 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR SGT. 

RUSSELL

Re: Dkt. No. 28

Plaintiff Ronald Douglas Collett, a prisoner incarcerated at Santa Rita County Jail, filed a 

pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his constitutional 

rights by Alameda County Sheriff’s Sergeant James Russell and the Alameda County Sheriff’s 

Office ("ACSO"). The Court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a Fourth Amendment 

claim against Sgt. Russell and twice dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against the ACSO with leave to 

amend. 

On November 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in which 

he again fails to add allegations against the ACSO. Because this is the second opportunity 

Plaintiff has had to state a cognizable claim against the ACSO and he has failed to do so, his claim 

against the ASCO is dismissed with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Yourish v. California

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of action with prejudice 

when plaintiff failed to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, because expeditious 

resolution of litigation, the court's need to manage its docket, and avoiding prejudice to defendants 

favored dismissal).

In his SAC, however, Plaintiff adds an allegation that Deputy Brian Kimzey was the 

Case 4:14-cv-00857-KAW Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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 California

second officer who, with Sgt. Russell, assaulted him on September 19, 2013. This is sufficient to 

allege a Fourth Amendment claim against Deputy Kimzey.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The claim against the ACSO is dismissed with prejudice.

2. Plaintiff states a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force against 

Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy Kimzey.

3. 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 second

amended complaint (Dkt. No. 28) and all attachments thereto, a copy of this Order and a copy of 

the form “Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” to Alameda County Sheriff’s

Deputy Kimzey. A courtesy copy of the second amended complaint with attachments and this 

Order shall also be mailed to the Alameda County Counsel’s Office.

4. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires him 

to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant to 

Rule 4, if Defendant, 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, he will be required to bear the cost of 

such service unless good cause be shown for his failure to sign and return the waiver forms. If 

service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on the date that the 

waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be required to serve 

and file an answer before sixty 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 is advised 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 has been personally 

served, the answer shall be due sixty days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent 

or twenty days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

Case 4:14-cv-00857-KAW Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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 California

5. Defendant shall file his Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on or 

before the date his answer is due.

6. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than thirty days from the date his answer is due, Defendant shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendant files a motion for 

summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in 

all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If 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. 

At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, 

Defendant shall comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th 

Cir. 2012), and Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012), and provide Plaintiff with notice 

of what is required of him to oppose a summary judgment motion on the merits or for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies. 

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive 

motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than twenty-eight days after 

the date on which Defendant’s motion is filed. 

Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read the notice that will be provided to 

him by Defendants when the motion is filed, and 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 Defendants’ summary judgment 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.

Case 4:14-cv-00857-KAW Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 4
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 California

c. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen 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. Sgt. Russell shall file his dispositive motion together with Dep. Kimzey. 

8. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(B) is hereby granted to Defendants to 

depose Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

9. All communications by 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 their counsel.

10. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

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).

11. 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 seven days prior to the deadline sought 

to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00857-KAW Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 4