Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-00183/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-00183-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

II 

t<:l I2 

t:: ..... ;::3 E o..s 13 

U:.= 

...... t<:l 

.8 u I4 '"''-

-~ 0 

Qt) I5 en ·;::: 11) ...... ...... <ll t<:l ..... 

~Q I6 

-o E 11) 11) I7 .-:: .J:: 

c: t:: ::::J 0 

z I8 

I9 

20 

2I 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FILED 

MAY 2 B 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOE ABBOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOCTOR E. TOOTELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

Case No. II-cv-0 I83-LHK (PR) 

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE; 

DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

COMPREHENSIVE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR NOTICE 

REGARDING SUCH MOTION 

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § I983 challenging the conditions ofhis confinement at San Quentin State 

Prison. On February 25, 20I4, this court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to 

dismiss, and directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On that same day, this court 

granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants Dr. 

Grant and Dr. Tootell filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit, challenging this court's 

determination that Dr. Grant and Dr. Tootell were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court 

stayed this case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision. On January 27, 20I6, the Ninth Circuit 

affirmed, and issued its mandate on February 22, 20I6. 

Case No. 11-cv-0 183-LHK (PR) 

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COMPREHENSIVE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION 

Case 5:11-cv-00183-LHK Document 178 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

~ 12 

t:: .... ::s E ot.B 13 U;.::: 

...... ~ 

.~ u 14 1-<t.,..., .E o 

Ot> 15 r;l,l •t: Cl) ...... ...... Cll ~ .... Vio 16 

-o E Cl) Cl) 17 .t:: .J:: 

s::: t:: 

::::> 0 z 18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

The court hereby re-opens this case, and screens plaintiff's second amended complaint. 

For the reasons stated below, the court orders defendants Correctional Officer Orozco, Sergeant 

Guithrie, Correctional Officer Van Mastrigt, Sergeant Thompson, Correctional Officer McGehee, 

Correctional Officer Asuncion, Warden Cullen, Warden Wong, and Associate Warden Dacanay to 

file a comprehensive motion for summary judgment, or notice regarding such motion. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard ofReview 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 that 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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

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

B. Plaintiff's Claims 

Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleges that defendants Sergeant Guithrie, 

Correctional Officer Van Mastrigt, Sergeant Thompson, Correctional Officer McGehee, 

Correctional Officer Asuncion, Warden Cullen, Warden Wong, and Associate Warden Dacanay 

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and that defendant Correctional Officer 

Orozco used excessive force against plaintiff on several occasions. Liberally construed, these 

allegations are sufficient to state cognizable federal civil rights claims. 

C. Remaining Defendants 

The parties are reminded that the court previously dismissed Dr. Matan with prejudice. 

2 

Case No. 11-cv-0183-LHK (PR) 

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COMPREHENSIVE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION 

Case 5:11-cv-00183-LHK Document 178 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 4
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

~ 12 

t:: ·- ::s E or.£ 13 

U:.::: 

...... ~ 

.8 u 14 ""'c..... 

-~ 0 

Qt) 15 rJ'l •t: (!) ...... 

...... "' 

Via ~ ·- 16 

"'0 E (!) (!) 17 .-:: ..s:: 

c: t:: ;:Jz 18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(Dkt. No. 41.) The court previously granted summary judgment to defendants Dr. Jones, Lt. 

Arnold, and Sgt. Seman. (Dkt. No. 157.) Plaintiffhas voluntarily dismissed defendant 

Correctional Officer Zeiler. (Dkt. No. 159.) 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows: 

1. The clerk shall RE-OPEN this case. The clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of 

the second amended complaint and a copy of this order to defense counsel Deputy Attorney 

General Martine Noel D' Agostino. Additionally, the clerk shall mail a copy of this order to 

plaintiff. 

2. No later than sixty (60) days from the filing date of this order, defendants 

Correctional Officer Orozco, Sergeant Guithrie, Correctional Officer Van Mastrigt, Sergeant 

Thompson, Correctional Officer McGehee, Correctional Officer Asuncion, Warden Cullen, 

Warden Wong, and Associate Warden Dacanay shall file a comprehensive motion for summary 

judgment with respect to the cognizable claims in the complaint. Any motion for summary 

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

to Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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. 

3. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and 

served on defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendants' motion is 

filed. Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 4 77 U.S. 317 (1986). 

4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiff's 

opposition is filed. 

5. 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 

Case No. 11-cv-0 183-LHK (PR) 

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COMPREHENSIVE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION 

Case 5:11-cv-00183-LHK Document 178 Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 4
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

II 

"' I2 

t:: ·- ;::l E o<£ 13 

u 

..... ·-

-

"' .2 u I4 .... <;...., 

-~ 0 

Qt) I5 (/) •t: (\) ..... ..... til "' ·- I6 r/)0 

-o E (\) (\) I7 .-:::: ..r::: s:: t:: ;:::J 0 

z I8 

I9 

20 

2I 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. All communications by the piaintiffwith the court must be served on defendants' 

counsel, by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants' counsel. 

7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 

8. It is plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 

and all 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 ofthis action for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4I(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: s/2.s-(z. t, I b 

United States District Judge 

4 

Case No. 11-cv-0183-LHK (PR) 

ORDER RE-OPENING CASE; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE COMPREHENSIVE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION 

Case 5:11-cv-00183-LHK Document 178 Filed 05/26/16 Page 4 of 4