Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03337/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03337-4/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAYVONE LARRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GOODMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03337-JST (PR)

SECOND ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

On July 23, 2014, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley 

State Prison, brought the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

staff at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), where he was previously incarcerated. Plaintiff’s 

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and he filed an amended complaint. On 

February 27, 2015, the Court found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs as against PBSP defendants J. Goodman and S. Sadighi.

On October 5, 2015, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, defendant Sadighi was 

dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint 

(“SAC”) to name the correct parties. Specifically, the parties stipulated that plaintiff’s amended 

complaint was defective because it mistakenly alleged conduct by defendant Sadighi that should 

have been alleged with respect to PBSP Sergeant M. Traylor.

Plaintiff has filed his SAC, which is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that defendants PBSP Correctional Officer S. Sadighi and PBSP Sergeant 

M. Traylor failed to take plaintiff seriously when plaintiff notified them that he was suicidal. 

Specifically, the SAC alleges the following:

Case 3:14-cv-03337-JST Document 38 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

On April 11, 2013, while housed at the PBSP Segregated Housing Unit, plaintiff informed 

Goodman that he was feeling suicidal and hearing voices. Goodman told plaintiff to wait until he 

finished his count after which he would return to talk to plaintiff. After Goodman walked away, 

plaintiff proceeded with his first suicide attempt by jumping off a concrete desk and hitting his 

head on the metal toilet. He then got up and jumped again. Upon hearing the sound of the first 

impact, Goodman returned to plaintiff’s cell in time to witness the second suicide attempt. 

Goodman left again, and plaintiff proceeded with a third and fourth suicide attempt – again 

jumping from the concrete desk and hitting his head on the metal toilet. 

When Goodman returned, he was accompanied by Traylor, who asked “What seems to be 

the problem?” Plaintiff told Traylor that he was feeling suicidal and hearing voices. Traylor 

instructed Goodman to finish his count while he monitored plaintiff. Goodman finished his count 

and returned to plaintiff’s cell. Traylor then told Goodman to monitor plaintiff while he went to 

inform the Mental Health Department. Traylor left and returned with Mental Health Department 

staff and several officers. Plaintiff informed the Mental Health Department staff that he was 

feeling suicidal and hearing voices. The staff members looked at plaintiff and sighed, at which 

point plaintiff proceeded with his fifth and sixth suicide attempts.

Plaintiff got up from the ground feeling light-headed and dazed but nonetheless proceeded 

to attempt another jump. At that point, the Mental Health Department staff told the custody 

officers, “This is an emergency.” Traylor then stated, “Okay Guy. You proved your point. Cuff 

up.” 

Plaintiff was escorted to the CTC. As a result of his suicide attempts, he sustained injuries 

to the right side of his head and right hip area. He could not move the right side of his body. At 

the CTC he was placed on psychiatric medication.

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 dismiss any 

Case 3:14-cv-03337-JST Document 38 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

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). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 

must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

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

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

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 

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.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 

F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on other 

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

Case 3:14-cv-03337-JST Document 38 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

Neither negligence nor gross negligence warrant liability under the Eighth Amendment. 

Id. at 835-36 & n4. An “official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have 

perceived but did not, . . . cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment.” 

Id. at 838. Instead, “the official’s conduct must have been ‘wanton,’ which turns not upon its 

effect on the prisoner, but rather, upon the constraints facing the official.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 

F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991)). Prison 

officials violate their constitutional obligation only by “intentionally denying or delaying access to 

medical care.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. 

Giving it the liberal construction to which it is entitled, the pro se SAC states a cognizable 

claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Goodman and 

Traylor. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The SAC states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 

Goodman and Traylor. The Clerk shall restore M. Traylor as a defendant on the docket in this 

action.

2. Defendant Goodman has already been served and has appeared in this action. 

Accordingly, the Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the SAC in this matter, and a copy of this order on Sergeant M. 

Traylor at PBSP. The Clerk also shall 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 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants must file 

and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion for summary 

judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and 

adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 

F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Case 3:14-cv-03337-JST Document 38 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 

If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, 

defendants 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 28 days from the date the 

motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 

provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the 

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

hearing will be held on the motion. 

4. Plaintiff is advised that 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 [current Rule 56(c)], 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 

 

1

 If defendants assert that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as 

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendants must raise such argument in a motion for summary 

judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which 

held that failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, should be raised by a defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Such a motion 

should also incorporate a modified Wyatt notice in light of Albino. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 

F.3d 1108, 1120, n.14 (9th Cir. 2003); Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012).

Case 3:14-cv-03337-JST Document 38 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

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) (en banc) (App. A).

(The Rand notice above does not excuse defendants’ obligation to serve said notice again 

concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

5. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants’

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until defendants’

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

defendants, but once defendants are represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 

counsel rather than directly to defendants.

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 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. 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.

8. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 

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

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03337-JST Document 38 Filed 01/12/16 Page 6 of 6