Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05071/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

R.N. CROSBY, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5071 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

STATUS; ORDER OF SERVICE 

(Docket No. 11)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff has been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court initially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint

against Defendant Parker with leave to amend and found Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants

Crosby, Turner, Lucine, and Park were cognizable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter,

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting a status of the case. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for status (docket no. 11). The Court will review the

amended complaint and order service of the amended complaint on the named Defendants. 

\\\

**Original filed 2/14/07**

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 2

STATEMENT 

Plaintiff alleges that on September 26, 1999, he injured his nose while playing volleyball

at Salinas Valley State Prison. This resulted in a broken and flattened nose pushed to the left

side of Plaintiff’s face. Correctional Officer White witnessed Plaintiff’s injury and immediately

escorted Plaintiff to the medical room located on subfacility “B” yard. Plaintiff’s nose was

bleeding profusely at this time. See Amended Complaint at 2. 

Medical Technician Assistant (“M.T.A.”) Jimenez began treatment on Plaintiff and

within fifteen minutes Plaintiff lost consciousness. Plaintiff woke up at the prison’s main

medical facility and received treatment from R.N. Crosby. Crosby administered medication to

Plaintiff and asked Plaintiff numerous questions concerning his injury. Crosby informed

Plaintiff that there was no radiologist available that day, therefore Plaintiff would have to wait

until the next day for X-rays to be taken. Plaintiff then requested that he be allowed to see an

outside physician because the prison physician was not available. Plaintiff believed that his nose

was either fractured or broken. R.N. Crosby refused Plaintiff’s request and the correctional

officer escorted Plaintiff back to subfacility “B.” Throughout the night, Plaintiff was in

excruciating pain and still bleeding profusely from his nose. Id. at 2-3. 

The next day, Plaintiff was suffering from an extreme headache and still bleeding from

his nostril. Plaintiff went to the medical room at subfacility “B” yard and was seen by M.T.A.

Turner. M.T.A. Turner was not aware of Plaintiff’s medical situation, as there were no notes or

reports of Plaintiff’s injury and resulting condition. M.T.A. Turner wrote up a report and

scheduled Plaintiff for X-rays either the next day, September 29, 1999 or September 30, 1999. 

Plaintiff again requested to be seen by an outside physician because he was certain his nose was

broken. M.T. A. Turner denied his request. Plaintiff had significant blood drainage down his

throat resulting in his loss of appetite. Plaintiff was not prescribed any medication for the pain or

to help stop the bleeding. See Amended Complaint at 3. 

Plaintiff’s September 29, 1999 X- ray appointment was cancelled without any apparent

reason. Correctional Officer McGowen informed Plaintiff that his appointment was rescheduled

for October 1, 1999. On October 1, 1999, after five days from the initial injury, Plaintiff was

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 3

seen by Dr. Andrew Lucine and X-rays were taken. The X-rays confirmed that Plaintiff’s nose

was broken. Plaintiff then requested that his nose be reset, as it was clear that Plaintiff’s nose

was pushed to the left side of his face. However, Dr. Lucine refused to reset Plaintiff’s nose. 

See Amended Complaint at 4. 

On October 27, 1999, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Park, who prescribed Ibuprofen and

Neosynephrine. Plaintiff asked Dr. Park to reset his nose, explaining that his nose was

continuing to bleed with blood draining down the back of his throat, affecting his appetite. 

Plaintiff also informed Dr. Park he had difficulty breathing through his nose and was still

experiencing extreme pain. Dr. Park refused to reset Plaintiff’s nose and told Plaintiff that he

would schedule a follow-up appointment in a week to have the nose reset. This follow up

appointment never occurred and Plaintiff’s nose was not reset. Plaintiff is still experiencing the

same medical problems today due to this injury which resulted in permanent disfigurement of his

nose. Id. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ conduct amounted to deliberate indifference to his

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff names the following Defendants

in his complaint: R.N. Crosby, Salinas Valley State Prison; M.T.A. Turner, Salinas Valley State

Prison; Dr. Park, Salinas Valley State Prison; and Dr. Andrew Lucine, Salinas Valley State

Prison. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and compensatory and punitive monetary

damages. See Amended Complaint at 5-6. 

 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, however, be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 4

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claim 

1. Deliberate Indifference

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds,

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v.

Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of “deliberate indifference”

involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the

nature of the defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. 

A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result

in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or

patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical

condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and

substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a “serious” need for medical

treatment. See id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir.

1990)).

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial

risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but

he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk,

but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the

risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 5

In order for deliberate indifference to be established, therefore, there must be a

purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin,

974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.

1985). A finding that the defendant’s activities resulted in “substantial” harm to the prisoner is

not necessary, however. Neither a finding that a defendant’s actions are egregious nor that they

resulted in significant injury to a prisoner is required to establish a violation of the prisoner’s

federal constitutional rights. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060, 1061 (citing Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1992) (rejecting “significant injury” requirement and noting that

Constitution is violated “whether or not significant injury is evident”)). 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff alleges a cognizable claim against Defendants Crosby,

Turner, Park, and Lucine for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The Court will order

service of the amended complaint. 

 CONCLUSION 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for status (docket no. 11) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall 

send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet along with this order. 

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 

without prepayment of fees, copies of the amended complaint in this matter (docket no. 10), all

attachments thereto, and copies of this order on Defendants R.N. CROSBY, Salinas Valley State

Prison; M.T.A. TURNER, Salinas Valley State Prison; DR. PARK, Salinas Valley State Prison;

and DR. ANDREW LUCINE, Salinas Valley State Prison. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of

this order on Plaintiff. 

3. 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, or shall notify the Court that

Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion. The motion

shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

\\\ 

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 6

Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified

immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. 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 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, 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.

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, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (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

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 7

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. 

4. 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.

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

and the 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 for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

2/14/07

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 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

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Status; Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.04\Chavez071srv 8

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Guillermo Chavez

J-98151

CSP- Corcoran 

P.O. Box 3466/ 3B05-125L

Corcoran, CA 93212

Case 5:04-cv-05071-JF Document 13 Filed 02/14/07 Page 8 of 8