Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03946-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE MARCOS GOMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES C. PLUMMER, sheriff; 

SANDY KNIGHT, day nurse,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3946 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Joe Marcos Gomes, an inmate at the Deuel Vocational Institution, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about a problem he encountered when he was

incarcerated at the Santa Rita Facility of the Alameda County Jail. The court dismissed the

complaint with leave to amend. Gomes thereafter filed an amended complaint, which is now

before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

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. See id. at

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

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

Case 3:05-cv-03946-SI Document 14 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

To establish a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, an inmate claiming that prison

officials failed to attend to medical needs must establish both (1) a serious medical need and (2)

deliberate indifference to that need by prison officials. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,

1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992). A medical need is serious if the failure to treat the inmate's condition

could result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id.

at 1059 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). 

Gomes alleges in his amended complaint that he obtained prescriptions for special shoes

and ibuprofen on August 16, 2005, while he was incarcerated at the Santa Rita Facility. The

prescriptions were lost. Gomes further alleges that he saw day nurse Sandy Knight on August

30, 2005 and attempted to get a replacement copy of the shoe prescription and a renewal of the

ibuprofen prescription. He alleges that nurse Knight cancelled his prescriptions without

consulting a doctor and told him to buy ibuprofen at the canteen. Gomes alleges that he did not

buy the medications. He further alleges that as a result, he suffered until his transfer out of Santa

Rita on October 24, 2005. Liberally construed, the allegations of the amended complaint state

a claim for relief under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to medical needs by defendant Sandy

Knight. 

Although the amended complaint does not indicate whether Gomes was a pretrial detainee

or a convict at the time of the incident, the allegations would suffice to state a claim under the

Fourteenth Amendment or Eighth Amendment. Even though pretrial detainees' claims arise

under the Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating

those claims. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment

guarantees provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). 

Case 3:05-cv-03946-SI Document 14 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 4
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against defendant Sandy Knight for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's medical needs.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the amended complaint, a copy of this order, and

a copy of all the other documents in the case file upon Sandy Knight, who apparently is

employed as a nurse on the medical staff at the Santa Rita Facility of the Alameda County Jail.

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than June 2, 2006, defendant must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendant is of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, she must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than July 7, 2006. Plaintiff

must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as he prepares

his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make 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 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. (See Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 3:05-cv-03946-SI Document 14 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 4
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

c. If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than July 21, 2006.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

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) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly 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). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 

7. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03946-SI Document 14 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 4