Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02566/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02566-1/pdf.json

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

---

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FILED 

JUN 0 2 2015 

8 

9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 THOMAS EUGENE MOORE, 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 vs. 

14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

15 REHABILITATIONS DIRECTOR J. 

BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

) No. C 14-2566 LHK (PR) 

) 

) ORDER OF SERVICE; 

) DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

) FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

) NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

) MOTION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

16 

17 __________________________) 

18 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding prose, filed an amended civil rights 

19 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses 

20 several defendants and orders service upon the remaining defendants. 

21 DISCUSSION 

22 A. 

23 

Standard ofReview 

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

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

25 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss 

26 any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or 

27 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(l), 

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

Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Moore566srv. wpd 

Case 5:14-cv-02566-LHK Document 15 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 6
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

2 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a p1aintiffmust allege two essential elements: 

3 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

4 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

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

6 B. Plaintiff's Claims 

7 In plaintiffs original complaint, he alleged that in July 2004, defendants1 allowed 

8 drinking water within Monterey County, Salinas, Soledad, and Salinas Valley State Prison 

9 ("SVSP") to become contaminated, toxic, and undrinkable for human consumption. Between 

10 July 2004 and August 2004, while plaintiffwas confined at SVSP, plaintiff became ill. 

11 Warnings were given about the contaminated water via flyers and posters, and plaintiff and other 

12 inmates were instructed that they should not drink the water at SV~P facilities because the water 

13 was unsafe. However, the warnings were given too late because plaintiff had already been 

14 ingesting the contaminated water. Defendants CDCR Director J. Beard, Warden Lamarque, 

15 Governor Brown Jr., and Doe #1 turned off the drinking water from plaintiff's cell, and plaintiff 

16 was given bottled water by the cup. Eight years later, on November 8, 2012, plaintiffwas 

17 diagnosed with prostate cancer, and on October 23, 2013, plaintiff discovered that the nitrate and 

18 other hazardous materials that were present in the water in 2004 are some ofthe chemicals 

19 known to cause cancer. Plaintiff claims that defendants exposed plaintiff to these chemicals, 

20 which caused plaintiffs cancer. 

21 The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. In plaintiff's amended 

22 complaint, he names as defendants: CDCR Director J. Beard; SVSP Warden Lamarque; the 

23 County ofMonterey; the City of Soledad; MCWRA; MPWMD; and Does. Plaintiffpleads the 

24 

25 

1 Plaintiff names as defendants the California Department of Corrections and 

26 Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Director J. Beard; Salinas Valley State Prison Warden Lamarque; 

27 Governor J. Brown; the County of Monterey; the City of Soledad; the Monterey County Water 

Resources Agency ("MCWRA"); the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 

28 ("MPWMD"); and Doe defendants. 

Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Moore566srv. wpd 2 

Case 5:14-cv-02566-LHK Document 15 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 6
1 same general facts regarding what defendants did and did not do, and adds that defendants Beard 

2 and Lamarque knew that the water was unsafe for drinking in 1999 but failed to take any 

3 reasonable measures to address it. 

4 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief against defendants 

5 Beard and Lamarque. 

6 Plaintiff's allegations against "Doe" defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

7 Although the use of"John Doe" to identity a defendant is not favored in the Ninth Circuit, see 

8 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980), situations may arise where the identity 

9 of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, 

10 the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identity the unknown 

11 defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover their identities or that the 

12 complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See id Should plaintiff discover the identities 

13 ofthe Doe defendants, he may move to amend his complaint to include them in this action at a 

14 later date. 

15 Finally, plaintiff's claim against municipal defendants Monterey County, the City of 

16 Soledad, MCWRA, and MPWMD are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffwas 

17 already warned that to raise a claim of municipal liability, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the 

18 plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the 

19 municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounted to deliberate indifference to the 

20 plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy was the moving force behind the 

21 constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 

22 (9th Cir. 1997). However, a municipality does not cause the alleged violation, and therefore is 

23 not liable under Section 1983, if it does not have the power to remedy the alleged violation. See 

24 Estate of Brooks v. United States, 197 F.3d 1245, 1248-49 (9th Cir. 1999). 

25 In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that the municipal defendants are responsible 

26 for providing safe, clean drinking water, and that they did not have a policy providing for 

27 medical treatment or medical information to prevent cancer from ingesting unsafe water. The 

28 claim against municipal defendants must be dismissed for the following reasons. First, plaintiff 

Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.I4\Moore566srv. wpd 3 

Case 5:14-cv-02566-LHK Document 15 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 6
states that the municipal defendants are responsible for providing safe and clean drinking water. 

2 However, there is no indication that municipal defendants are also responsible for an SVSP 

3 inmate's medical needs or treatment, or that municipal defendants had the power to remedy a 

4 violation of a deliberate indifference to an SVSP inmate's health or safety. Second, in order to 

5 allege municipal liability under a theory that the municipality had a policy of inaction, a plaintiff 

6 must show that, through its omissions, a municipality is "responsible for a constitutional 

7 violation committed by one ofits employees." Gibson v. CountyofWashoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 

8 1186 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff must also show that the municipality's deliberate indifference 

9 led to the omission and the omission caused the employee to commit the constitutional violation. 

I 0 !d. Here, plaintiff does not allege that any municipal employee was responsible for violating 

II plaintiff's constitutional rights. Finally, plaintiff has not plausibly suggested that he would have 

12 avoided contracting prostate cancer had defendants implemented proper policies. See Long v. 

13 County of Los Angeles, 442 F .3d 1178, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that "[f]or a policy to be the 

14 moving force behind the deprivation of a constitutional right, ... [t]he plaintiff's burden is to 

15 establish that the injury would have been avoided had proper policies been implemented."). 

16 Accordingly, defendants Monterey County, the City of Soledad, MCWRA, and MPWMD 

17 are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim 

18 against Monterey County, the City of Soledad, MCWRA, and MPWMD for failing to have a 

19 policy providing for medical treatment or medical information to SVSP inmates after ingesting 

20 unsafe water because municipal entities do not operate state prisons. Thus, the municipal 

21 defendants did not have the authority to alter any medical policy or treatment affecting inmates 

22 at SVSP. See Estate of Brooks, 197 F .3d at 1248 (affirming dismissal of Monell claim against 

23 the county because the county's omission in policy was not the legal cause of plaintiffs injury 

24 and had no authority to remedy the alleged violation). Amendment would be futile because "it 

25 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of' his claim against 

26 Monterey County, the City of Soledad, MCWRA, and MPWMD which would entitle him to 

27 relief. See Wei/burg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Dismissal of a prose 

28 complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 

Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR. I 4\Moore566srv. wpd 4 

Case 5:14-cv-02566-LHK Document 15 Filed 06/02/15 Page 4 of 6
the complaint could not be cured by amendment."). 

2 CONCLUSION 

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

4 I. Defendants Does are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants Monterey 

5 County, the City of Soledad, MCWRA, and MPWMD are DISMISSED with prejudice for 

6 failure to state a claim. 

7 2. The clerk of the court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 

8 Service of Summons, two copies ofthe Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy ofthe amended 

9 complaint and all attachments thereto (docket no. 11), and a copy of this order to CDCR J. 

10 Beard and Warden Lamarque at Salinas Valley State Prison. The clerk ofthe court shall 

11 also mail a courtesy copy of the amended complaint and a copy of this order to the California 

12 Attorney General's Office. Additionally, the clerk shall mail a copy of this order to plaintiff. 

13 3. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 

14 requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 

15 Pursuant to Rule 4, if defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on 

16 behalf of plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to bear 

17 the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for their failure to sign and return the waiver 

18 form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the date 

19 that the waiver is filed, and defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before 

20 sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. Defendants are asked to 

21 read the statement set forth at the bottom of the waiver form that more completely describes the 

22 duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If service is waived after 

23 the date provided in the Notice but before defendants have been personally served, the Answer 

24 shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty 

25 (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

26 4. No later than sixty (60) days from the date the waivers are sent, defendants shall 

27 file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the cognizable 

28 claims in the complaint. 

Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.I4\Moore566srv. wpd 5 

Case 5:14-cv-02566-LHK Document 15 Filed 06/02/15 Page 5 of 6
Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate factual documentation 

2 and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants 

3 are advised that summary jud2ment cannot be 2ranted, nor qualified immunity found, if 

4 material facts are in dispute. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be 

5 resolved by summary jud2ment, they shall so inform the court prior to the date the 

6 summary jud2ment motion is due. 

7 5. Plaintiffs opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court and 

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

9 filed. Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

10 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must 

11 come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of 

12 his claim). 

13 6. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiffs 

14 opposition is filed. 

15 7. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

16 hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 

17 8. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants 

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

19 counsel. 

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

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

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

23 and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a 

24 timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute 

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

26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

27 DATED: ~~{~2Di5-

28 United States District Judge 

Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Moore566srv. wpd 6 

Case 5:14-cv-02566-LHK Document 15 Filed 06/02/15 Page 6 of 6