Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-01992/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-01992-15/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK ANTHONY CANDLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SANTA RITA COUNTY JAIL WATCH 

COMMANDER, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 11-cv-01992-CW (PR) 

ORDER SERVING COGNIZABLE CLAIM 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California 

Men’s Colony, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about his conditions of confinement 

during the period of his incarceration as a pretrial detainee at 

the Alameda County Jail in Santa Rita (SRCJ). On January 26, 

2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

on all claims in the first amended complaint. However, because 

summary judgment on the procedural due process claim was granted 

on the ground that Plaintiff failed to name the proper 

defendants, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

file a second amended complaint (2AC) to allow him to name the 

proper defendants. 

On March 4, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 2AC with 

leave to amend. The Court noted that, although Plaintiff named 

individuals as Defendants, he did not allege how they violated 

his procedural due process rights. 

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a third amended 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 81 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 7
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 Californi

a

complaint, (3AC), which the Court now reviews. 

DISCUSSION 

I. 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. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify 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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be 

liberally construed. 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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). 

 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s 

actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a 

federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dept. 

Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 

2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A 

person deprives another of a constitutional right within the 

meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in 

another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 81 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 7
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 Californi

a

legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the 

plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

In his 3AC, Plaintiff names as Defendants SRCJ Watch 

Commander Gordon Bowan and SRCJ Deputies Bervin Hankins, 

Christopher Feeny, Rogelio Matedne, Mark Schlegal, Terry Carson, 

Aaron Garth, Robert Bixby, Robert Griffith and Michael Molly. 

Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants, except Bowan, were on the 

SRCJ Classification Committee and were responsible for the 

decision to place him in administrative segregation without due 

process of law, in that he did not receive notice of the reason 

Defendants determined to place him in administrative segregation, 

he did not have a hearing on the matter and he did not have an 

opportunity to present his views. As a result, for the entire 

900 days Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at SRCJ, he remained 

in isolation and was denied access to inmate programs and group 

religious services, he ate meals by himself in his cell, and had 

little access to the outdoor yard. 

Liberally construed, the 3AC appears to state a cognizable 

procedural due process claim against Deputies Hankins, Feeny, 

Matedne, Schlegal, Carson, Garth, Bixby, Griffith and Molly. 

However, even liberally construed, the 3AC does not state a 

cognizable claim against Watch Commander Bowan because the 

allegations state he was not on the Classification Committee nor 

do they indicate how he was responsible for the decision to place 

Plaintiff in administrative segregation. Therefore, the claim 

against Watch Commander Bowan is dismissed. Dismissal is with 

prejudice because Plaintiff had two opportunities to state a 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 81 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 7
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 Californi

a

cognizable claim against Bowan and he has failed to do so. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. The procedural due process claim against Watch Commander 

Bowan is dismissed with prejudice. 

 2. Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for the violation of 

his right to procedural due process against all Defendants, with 

the exception of Bowan. 

 3. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and 

Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the 

Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the 3AC (docket no. 80) 

and all attachments thereto, a copy of this Order, the Order 

Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (docket no. 

77), and a copy of the Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint 

(docket no. 79) to SRCJ Deputies Bervin Hankins, Christopher 

Feeny, Rogelio Matedne, Mark Schlegal, Terry Carson, Aaron Garth, 

Robert Bixby, Robert Griffith and Michael Molly. The Clerk shall 

also mail a copy of the 3AC and a copy of this Order and the 

other Orders mentioned above to the Office of the Alameda County 

Counsel. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order 

to Plaintiff. 

 4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving 

unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this 

action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive 

service of the summons, fail to do so, they will be required to 

bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for the 

failure to sign and return the waiver forms. If service is 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 81 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 7
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 Californi

a

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served 

on the date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to 

Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and 

file an answer before sixty days from the date on which the 

request for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to 

respond than would be required if formal service of summons is 

necessary.) 

 Defendants are advised to read the statement set forth at 

the foot of the waiver form that more completely describes the 

duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of the 

summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the 

Notice but before Defendants have been personally served, the 

answer shall be due sixty days from the date on which the request 

for waiver was sent or twenty days from the date the waiver form 

is filed, whichever is later. 

 5. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive 

motions in this action: 

 a. No later than thirty days from the date the answer 

is due, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or 

other dispositive motion. If Defendants file a motion for 

summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual 

documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 56. If Defendants are of the opinion that 

this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so 

inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is 

due. All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on 

Plaintiff. 

 At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment or 

other dispositive motion, Defendants shall comply with the Ninth 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 81 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 7
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 Californi

a

Circuit’s decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 

2012), and provide Plaintiff with notice of what is required of 

him to oppose a summary judgment motion. If the motion is based 

on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, Defendants must 

comply with the notice and procedural requirements in Albino v. 

Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 

 b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment or other dispositive motion shall be filed with the 

Court and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight days 

after the date on which Defendants’ motion is filed. 

 Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read 

the notice that will be provided to him by Defendants when the 

motion is filed, and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) 

(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 because he 

bears the burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must 

be prepared to produce evidence in support of those allegations 

when he files his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment 

motion. Such evidence may include sworn declarations from 

himself and other witnesses to the incident, and copies of 

documents authenticated by sworn declaration. Plaintiff will not 

be able to avoid summary judgment simply by repeating the 

allegations of his complaint. 

 c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 

fourteen days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 81 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 d. 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. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order 

pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) is required before the parties may 

conduct discovery. 

 7. All communications by 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. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address 

by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 

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 are not favored, though reasonable 

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time 

must be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the deadline 

sought to be extended. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/09/2015 

__________________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:11-cv-01992-CW Document 81 Filed 04/09/15 Page 7 of 7