Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00388/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00388-0/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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\perez388.service.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C 06- 00388 JW PR

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE

MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING

SUCH MOTION

Plaintiff, currently a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary - Lompoc in Terra

Haute, Indiana, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his

constitutional rights by prison officials during his detainment at the Santa Clara County

Jail (“SCCJ”). The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has

filed an amended complaint which is now before the Court for preliminary screening

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

Case 5:06-cv-00388-JW Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 6
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\perez388.service.wpd

2

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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

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

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).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2005, while he was detained at the Santa Clara

County Jail, he was attacked by defendants Officer Durante and three other unidentified

officers. Plaintiff alleges that he was handcuffed, belly-banded and shackled at the time

of the attack, and that he sustained blows to his chest, ribs, legs and face until he passed

out from the pain. Plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ conduct constitutes excessive

force in violation of the Fifth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment in violation

of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also claims that the jail commander is liable for

failing to properly train, supervise and maintain his personnel and department, whose

unconstitutional acts lead to plaintiff’s injuries. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s

allegations state cognizable claims under § 1983. 

Plaintiff’s claims against the County of Santa Clara are DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s

allegations that the County was indifferent to SCCJ’s alleged policy of harming and

harassing Mexican Nationals are conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts to show

that the County either knew of such a policy or itself maintained a policy that amounted

to deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Plumeau v. School Dist.

#40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Proof of random acts or

isolated incidents of unconstitutional action by a non-policymaking employee are

Case 5:06-cv-00388-JW Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\perez388.service.wpd

3

insufficient to establish the existence of a municipal policy or custom. See McDade v.

West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1142(9th Cir. 2000). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claims against Santa Clara County are DISMISSED for failure to 

state a cognizable claim for relief. Accordingly, Santa Clara County is DISMISSED as a

party to this action. 

2. 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 Officer Durante and the Jail

Commander at Santa Clara County Jail. The clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the

complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. As to defendants

John Does 2, 3 and 4, plaintiff may through discovery attempt to identify the unknown

defendants, and is thereafter given leave to amend to name the intended defendants. See

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); Barsten v. Dep’t of the Interior,

896 F.2d 422, 423-24 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff may request the Court to issue summons

upon the John Does after they have been identified. 

3. No later than sixty (60) 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 amended 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

Case 5:06-cv-00388-JW Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 6
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

1

 The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be given to

pro se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en

banc). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14.

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\perez388.service.wpd

4

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. 

4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

and served on defendants no later than thirty (30) 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:1

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 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.

b. In the event defendants file a motion for summary judgment, 

the Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to plaintiffs:

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

Case 5:06-cv-00388-JW Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 4 of 6
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\perez388.service.wpd

5

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 in favor of

defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff is advised to

read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward with

evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). 

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary

judgment may be deemed to be a consent by plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and

granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

6. 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. 

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

Case 5:06-cv-00388-JW Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 5 of 6
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.06\perez388.service.wpd

6

10. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be

granted. However, the party making the motion for an extension of time is not relieved

from his or her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made

a motion for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still meet the

deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is

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

sought to be extended. 

Dated: ___________________________ 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

 January 79, 2008

Case 5:06-cv-00388-JW Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 6 of 6