Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02089/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02089-0/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

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02089 Sullivan02089_service.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANSE SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

T. P. RYAN, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-02089 JW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION

On May 26, 2004, plaintiff, a “sexually violent predator” under a civil

commitment to Coalinga State Hospital for renewable periods of two years under

California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600

(“SVPA”), and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that during the several months in which he was

temporarily detained at the Santa Clara County Jail, beginning October 16, 2001,

defendants violated his constitutional rights by housing him under conditions that

are both punitive and unlawful as applied to civil detainees.

On April 25, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to the

Case 5:04-cv-02089-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 6
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

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02089 Sullivan02089_service.wpd 2

Court’s order filed March 30, 2005. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in the same order. The amended complaint is now before the Court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §

1915 at any time if the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Claims

As noted, plaintiff claims that while he was a detainee at the Santa Clara

County Jail, he was subjected to conditions of confinement that were punitive and

unlawful as applied to civil detainees. Specifically, he alleges he was forced to live

in deplorable conditions when he first arrived at the jail, that he was placed in a

housing area that was more restrictive than the main population housing for penal

inmates, and that he was intentionally and unreasonably denied his right to continue

mental health treatment, religious services, drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment,

and educational programs. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants refused to provide

appropriate food, clothing, visiting, and conjugal visiting that are conducive to his

Case 5:04-cv-02089-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02089 Sullivan02089_service.wpd 3

mental and physical health needs. 

A civil detainee awaiting adjudication is entitled to conditions of confinement

that are not punitive; a presumption of punitive conditions arises where such

individual is detained under conditions identical or similar to, or more restrictive

than, those under which pretrial criminal detainees are held, or where such

individual is detained under conditions more restrictive than those he would face

upon civil commitment. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 934 (9th Cir. 2004). If

the presumption applies, a defendant is allowed to demonstrate the existence of

legitimate, non-punitive interests justifying the conditions under which the detainee

was held, and to show the restrictions imposed were not excessive in relation to such

interests. See id. at 934-35; see also Hydrick v. Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 999-1001

(9th Cir. 2006) (holding substantive due process rights may be violated when SVPA

detainee subjected to punitive conditions). 

Although not every objectionable condition or restriction to which a plaintiff

is subjected as a civil detainee violates his federal constitutional rights, the

allegations of plaintiff herein, liberally construed, are sufficient to state a cognizable

claim under § 1983 for denial of the protections to which he is entitled under the

Due Process Clause. 

CONCLUSION

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

Marshall shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this

matter, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon defendants Edward

Flores, Captain Toby Wong, Sergeant R. Brooks, Sergeant Mitchell Conner,

Sergeant Tarabetz, Sergeant P. Jones, Correctional Officer Burden, the

Classification staff, and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Additionally,

Case 5:04-cv-02089-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 6
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

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02089 Sullivan02089_service.wpd 4

the Clerk shall mail a courtesy copy of this order to plaintiff and to the Office of the

Santa Clara County Counsel.

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. 

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:

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,

Case 5:04-cv-02089-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/09/07 Page 4 of 6
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

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02089 Sullivan02089_service.wpd 5

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 (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

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

Case 5:04-cv-02089-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/09/07 Page 5 of 6
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

Order of Service

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\04-02089 Sullivan02089_service.wpd 6

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.

DATED: July 9 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-02089-EJD Document 17 Filed 07/09/07 Page 6 of 6