Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01580/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERWIN REDDIC,

Plaintiff,

 v

M S EVANS, et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C-10-1580 VRW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at California

State Prison-Corcoran, has filed a pro se civil rights first amended

complaint under 42 USC § 1983 alleging that officials at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) violated his constitutional rights

while he was incarcerated there. Doc #4. Specifically, Plaintiff

alleges that SVSP correctional lieutenant J Ippolito was

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety when Ippolito gave

information about plaintiff to several prisoners that caused at

least one of those prisoners to engage plaintiff in a fight. Id at

3–5 & 8–9. Plaintiff states that after the fight, he informed

Ippolito that he was going to file a prison administrative grievance

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 8
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

against him and that Ippolito responded by telling plaintiff to

“watch his back because [he] was playing a dangerous game.” Id at

4. Plaintiff further alleges that he informed warden M S Evans in

writing of what Ippolito had done and asked to be transferred to

another facility, but that Evans ignored his letters. Id at 4 & 6. 

Plaintiff states that as a result of the fight, he was issued a

rules violation report for battery on an inmate with a weapon and

subsequently found guilty by Ippolito. Id at 5–8. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Ippolito and other SVSP

officials retaliated against plaintiff for his use of the prison

administrative grievance system by finding him guilty of the rules

violation and assessing a forfeiture of 360 days of good time

credits. Doc #4 at 9–10. Plaintiff further alleges that he was

denied due process of law with respect to the disciplinary hearing

on the rules violation report. Id at 9. Plaintiff seeks damages. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or

officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 USC § 1915A(a). 

The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,

or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief.” Id § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se

litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 8
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

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990).

To state a claim under 42 USC § 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. West v Atkins, 487 US 42, 48 (1988).

II

A

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take

reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v

Brennan, 511 US 825, 832 (1994). In particular, prison officials

have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. Id at 833; Hearns v Terhune, 413 F3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir

2005); Hoptowit v Ray, 682 F2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir 1982); Gillespie

v Civiletti, 629 F2d 637, 642 & n3 (9th Cir 1980). The failure of

prison officials to protect prisoners from attacks by other

prisoners or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the

Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the

deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2)

the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to

prisoner safety. Farmer, 511 US at 834; Hearns, 413 F3d at 1040–41. 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations against SVSP

officials described above appear to state a cognizable 42 USC § 1983

claim for an Eighth Amendment violation and defendants will be

served. 

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 8
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

B

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion

that a state actor took some adverse action against a prisoner (2)

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such

action (4) chilled the prisoner’s exercise of his First Amendment

rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate

correctional goal. Rhodes v Robinson, 408 F3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir

2005). The right of access to the courts extends to the exercise of

established prison grievance procedures, Bradley v Hall, 64 F3d

1276, 1279 (9th Cir 1995), such that a prisoner may not be

retaliated against for using such procedures. Rhodes, 408 F3d at

567; Bruce v Ylst, 351 F3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir 2003). 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations against SVSP

officials described above appear to state a cognizable 42 USC § 1983

claim for retaliation and defendants will be served. 

C

Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal 

prosecution and, consequently, the full panoply of rights due a

defendant in such proceedings does not apply. Wolff v McDonnell,

418 US 539, 556 (1974). Nevertheless, where serious rules

violations are alleged, state regulations restrict the power of

prison officials to impose sanctions, and, where the sanctions

imposed are severe, the Due Process Clause requires certain minimum

procedural protections. See id at 556–57, 571–72 n19. In

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 4 of 8
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

particular, the deprivation of a protected liberty interest 

warranting the procedural protections of due process occurs when the 

punishment administered by prison officials for a disciplinary

infraction “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” Sandin v

Conner, 515 US 472, 484 (1995), or “will inevitably affect the

duration of [a] sentence.” Id at 487. 

The five procedural requirements established by Wolff are:

(1) written notice of the charges; (2) a period of no less than

twenty-four hours to prepare for the disciplinary hearing; (3) a

written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on

and reasons for the disciplinary action; (4) a limited right to call

witnesses and present documentary evidence at the disciplinary

hearing; and (5) a limited right to receive assistance from a fellow

prisoner or correctional staff. See Wolff, 418 US at 564–70. 

In addition to the procedural requirements noted above,

the revocation of good time credits does not comport with the

minimum requirements of procedural due process in Wolff unless the

findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some

evidence in the record. Superintendent v Hill, 472 US 445, 454

(1985). Further, there must be some indicia of reliability of the

information that forms the basis for prison disciplinary actions. 

See Cato v Rushen, 824 F2d 703, 704–05 (9th Cir 1987). 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations against SVSP

officials described above appear to state a cognizable 42 USC § 1983

claim for a due process violation in connection with the

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 5 of 8
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

disciplinary hearing on the serious rules violation report and

defendants will be served.

III

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the first

amended complaint in this matter, all attachments thereto, and

copies of this order on defendants. The clerk also shall serve a

copy of this order on plaintiff. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the

court orders as follows:

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

this order, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or

other dispositive motion. A motion for summary judgment shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all

respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as

exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events

at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall

so inform the court prior to the date his motion is due. All papers

filed with the court shall be served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later

than thirty (30) days after defendants serve plaintiff with the

motion. 

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 6 of 8
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 7

c. 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(e), that contradict 

the facts shown in 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Rand v Rowland, 154 F3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir 1998) (en banc) (App

A). 

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 USC § 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 the defendants in their

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 7 of 8
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 8

motion to dismiss. Wyatt v Terhune, 315 F3d 1108, 1120 n14 (9th Cir

2003).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within

fifteen (15) days of the date on which Plaintiff serves them with

the opposition. 

 e. 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. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before

the parties may conduct discovery.

4. 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 defendants’ counsel.

5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this

case. Plaintiff must keep the court and all parties 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.10\Reddic-10-1580.order of service.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-01580-SI Document 7 Filed 08/12/10 Page 8 of 8