Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02457/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02457-3/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

RUDOLPH HERRERA MORALEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEVIN R. CHAPPELL,

Defendants. /

No. 1:15-cv-2457 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Dkt. No. 22

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The court dismissed the second

amended complaint with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint.

(Docs. 18, 21.)

DISCUSSION

A. 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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 24 Filed 05/27/16 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

1 Plaintiff’s claim regarding the denial of his inmate grievances was already dismissed

with prejudice because there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or

grievance system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).

2

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that he was denied access to educational programs due to his

learning disability.1

Title II of the ADA "prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of disability." Lovell v.

Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Title II provides that "no qualified individual

with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be

denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to

discrimination by such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II of the ADA applies to inmates

within state prisons. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 213

(1998).

In order to state a claim that a public program or service violated Title II of the ADA,

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 24 Filed 05/27/16 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

3

a plaintiff must show: he is a "qualified individual with a disability"; he was either excluded

from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's services, programs, or

activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and such exclusion,

denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability. McGary v. City of

Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff may bring a claim under Title II of the ADA against state entities for

injunctive relief and damages. See Phiffer v. Columbia River Correctional Institute, 384

F.3d 791, 792 (9th Cir. 2004). The standard for recovery of damages is deliberate

indifference to plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124,

1138 (9th Cir. 2001). "Deliberate indifference requires both knowledge that a harm to a

federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that likelihood." Id.

at 1139. 

Plaintiff argues that he has Dyslexia and was denied a one-on-one tutor and as a

result he was unable to pass a an entrance exam to take courses with Coastline College. 

He argues this violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He seeks monetary

damages and injunctive relief. Liberally construed this claim is sufficient to proceed. 

Plaintiff’s claim that the denial of the tutor violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of

cruel and unusual punishment fails to state a claim and is denied with prejudice.

Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and

although district courts may "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in

forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that does not give the

courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 24 Filed 05/27/16 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

4

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not demonstrated

exceptional circumstances in this case. The legal issues are not overly complex and

plaintiff has articulated his claims well and has submitted well reasoned and written

complaints despite having Dyslexia.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 22) is DENIED.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form

and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons,

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, copies of the third amended complaint with

attachments and copies of this order on defendant Warden Ron Davis at San Quentin State

Prison.

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, 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, 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, they 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. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve,

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.

4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and

Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss

for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 24 Filed 05/27/16 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

5

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING,"

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take

note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)," which is

provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. If defendants wishes to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than

fifteen days after the opposition is served upon them. 

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. 

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. 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) is required before the

parties may conduct discovery.

6. 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.” He also 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: May 27, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 24 Filed 05/27/16 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

6

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be

no trial. 

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did

exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is,

documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are

authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it is granted,

your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 24 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 6