Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03973/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03973-0/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

No. C 13-3973 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 1/6/14*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOHN RICHARD MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

R.K. SWIFT, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 13-3973 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE;

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

prisoner. Defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such

motion on or before April 2, 2014, unless an extension is granted. The Court further

directs that defendants are to adhere to the new notice provisions detailed in Sections

2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

Case 3:13-cv-03973-RS Document 4 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 5
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

No. C 13-3973 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

2

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 id.

§ 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. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that (1) Correctional Captain R.K. Swift, (2) Correctional Sergeant 

J. Harlan, and (3) Warden Greg D. Lewis, all employees of Pelican Bay State Prison, violated

his First Amendment and federal due process rights. Liberally construed, these claims are

cognizable under section 1983. Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED without

prejudice to his pursuing such claims in state court.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States 

Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon (1) Correctional Captain R.K. Swift, 

Case 3:13-cv-03973-RS Document 4 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 5
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

No. C 13-3973 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

3

(2) Correctional Sergeant J. Harlan, and (3) Warden Greg D. Lewis, all employees of Pelican

Bay State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order to

the California Attorney General’s Office.

2. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendants shall file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in the

complaint found to be cognizable above. 

a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune,

315 F.3d 1108, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810

(2003). 

b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the 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 any defendant is of the opinion

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he 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 forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ motion is

filed. 

a. In the event the defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:

The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground you have not exhausted your administrative

remedies. The motion will, if granted, result in the dismissal of your case. When a party you

are suing makes a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly

supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you may not simply

Case 3:13-cv-03973-RS Document 4 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 5
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

No. C 13-3973 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

4

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, or documents, that contradict the facts shown in the

defendant’s declarations and documents and show that you have in fact exhausted your

claims. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) 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. 

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must 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).

9. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be

extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 

10. A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs

be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, No. 09-15548, slip op. 7871, 7874

(9th Cir. July 6, 2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when

they file and serve any motion for summary judgment:

Case 3:13-cv-03973-RS Document 4 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 5
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

No. C 13-3973 RS (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

5

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 

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. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2014 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03973-RS Document 4 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 5