Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06480/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06480-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ROBERT WILLIAM BALL, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CURRENT WARDEN OF SAN

QUENTIN, CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN,

CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT

MARQUEZ, CORRECTIONAL

LIEUTENANT FULLER AND JAMES

TILTON, SECRETARY OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6480 JSW (PR)

ORDER REGARDING PENDING

MOTIONS AND SCHEDULING

ORDER

(Docket No. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California, formerly incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison, filed a civil rights action in the Marin County Superior Court,

complaining of violations of his civil rights while incarcerated there. Defendants

removed the action and filed a motion seeking screening of the complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A, which is now GRANTED (docket no. 2). The Court has reviewed

Plaintiff’s complaint and will order the claims regarding excessive force served as to 

Defendant Marquez. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiff alleges that on June 30, 2005, he approached Correctional Sergeant

Marquez at San Quentin State Prison and asked why he had not been released as “my

release date had come days before” and Defendant Marquez failed to respond. Plaintiff

Case 3:06-cv-06480-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 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 2

alleges that after several days of this, when Plaintiff told Marquez that he was going to

find the Lieutenant, Defendant Marquez rushed him from behind, twisted his arm behind

his back, shoved him into the Sergeant’s office where he slammed him into a wall

against several sharp objects. Plaintiff seeks damages.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 U.S.C. § 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). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. 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 the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

ANALYSIS

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 31 (1993). "After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." 

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation and

citation omitted). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently

serious, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 824, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.

Case 3:06-cv-06480-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 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

1

Defendants’ counsel has informed the Court that Defendant Marquez was not served at

San Quentin State Prison because this Defendant had transferred to the Academy in Galt. 

Therefore, the Court has ordered service on Defendant Marquez there. 

3

294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of

mind, i.e., the offending conduct was wanton, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297);

LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s allegations against

Defendant Marquez are sufficient to warrant a response. All other Defendants are

dismissed, as Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific conduct which forms a basis for

liability on their part and it is well established that there is no respondeat superior

liability under section 1983. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989);

Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir.

1984); accord Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (local

governments cannot be liable under § 1983 under respondeat superior theory).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

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

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and all attachments

thereto and a copy of this order upon: Defendant R. Marquez at the Richard A. McGee

Correctional Training Center, 9850 Twin Cities Road, Galt, California1

. The Clerk shall

also serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff. All other Defendants are dismissed and the

Clerk shall terminate them as Defendants in this action. 

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, Defendant

shall either file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice

to the Court that he is of the opinion that this matter cannot be resolved by dispositive

motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Case 3:06-cv-06480-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 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 4

Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor

qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. 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 the Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the

Court and served on Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendant’s

motion is filed. The following notice is for the benefit of all pro se litigants:

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, 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 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.

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). 

c. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Case 3:06-cv-06480-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/10/07 Page 4 of 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 5

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. 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.

4. 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 five days prior

to the deadline sought to be extended.

5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant,

or Defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel.

6. 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 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06480-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/10/07 Page 5 of 5