Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04620/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04620-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding

Such Motion

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Crane620srv.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. CRANE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. AMBRIZ, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4620 JF (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

AND OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison

(“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against California state prison officials. Plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. The Court will dismiss one of

Plaintiff’s two claims because it fails to state a cognizable basis for relief, and order

service of the complaint on Defendants based on Plaintiff’s other, cognizable claim. 

DISCUSSION

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

Case 5:07-cv-04620-JF Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 7
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 Partial Dismissal and of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding

Such Motion

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Crane620srv.wpd 2

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 id. § 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). 

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).

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations,

liberally construed, state a cognizable claim against Defendants that they violated his

First Amendment rights by retaliating against his for exercising his constitutional right to

sue prison officials. 

In connection with a second claim, plaintiff alleges his discipline for being “out of

bounds” violates his constitutional rights to “fair warning” Bouie v. City of Columbia,

378 U.S. 347 (1964). Bouie determined that if a judicial construction of a criminal statute

is “‘unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior

to the conduct in issue,’ [the construction] must not be given retroactive effect.” Bouie,

378 U.S. at 354 (citation omitted). The rationale of Bouie and its progeny rests on the

core due process concepts of notice, foreseeability, and the right to fair warning of

criminal penalties. Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 459 (2001). Here, Plaintiff

suffered no criminal penalty, only an administrative citation, in connection with his

discipline. Plaintiff attaches the Rule Violation Report, which indicates Plaintiff was

counseled, warned and reprimanded, and he lost various privileges, such as use of the

dayroom, family visits, and special purchases, for thirty days. (Complaint at Ex. A.) 

Plaintiff did not even suffer any loss of good time credits or any other type of punishment

affecting the duration of his confinement. (Id.) Bouie and the constitutional requirement

Case 5:07-cv-04620-JF Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 7
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

 1The Court notes that Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process is also not implicated by

his discipline because he received no loss of good time credits in connection with his discipline,

and as such did not suffer an “atypical and significant hardship” within the meaning of Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-87 (1995) (finding due process not implicated where duration of

custody not affected and plaintiff not exposed to conditions atypical of prisons generally); cf.

 Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding placement in segregated

housing does not on its own rise to atypical hardship under Sandin). 

Order of Partial Dismissal and of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding

Such Motion

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Crane620srv.wpd 3

of fair notice for criminal statutes do not apply here because the prison regulation Plaintiff

violated is not a criminal statute, and Plaintiff suffered no criminal penalties in connection

with the discipline he received.1

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s second claim will be dismissed

for failure to state a cognizable basis for relief under § 1983. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. Plaintiff’s second claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

basis for relief.

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 Correctional Officer D. Ambriz,

Correctional Officer Zornes, Correctional Sergeant D. Galloway, Captain S. Hatton,

Chief Disciplinary Officer D. M. Mantel, and Chief Deputy Warden G.A. Neotti at

Salinas Valley State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint

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

3. 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 claim

in the complaint found to be cognizable above. 

a. If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that

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.

Case 5:07-cv-04620-JF Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 7
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

 2The 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 Partial Dismissal and of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding

Such Motion

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Crane620srv.wpd 4

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. 

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 Defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), Plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:2

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

Case 5:07-cv-04620-JF Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 4 of 7
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 Partial Dismissal and of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding

Such Motion

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Crane620srv.wpd 5

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

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 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.

//

//

//

Case 5:07-cv-04620-JF Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 5 of 7
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 Partial Dismissal and of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding

Such Motion

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Crane620srv.wpd 6

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).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/29/08 JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04620-JF Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 6 of 7
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 Partial Dismissal and of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding

Such Motion

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Crane620srv.wpd 7

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Richard J. Crane 

C-44519 

Salinas Valley State Prison 

31625 Hwy 101

P.O. Box 1050 

Soledad, CA 93960

Case 5:07-cv-04620-JF Document 4 Filed 03/03/08 Page 7 of 7