Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01978/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01978-0/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

MARKESE T. PETTY, AA0987,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. BRADBURY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01978-SK (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California State Prison, Sacramento, has filed a pro se civil 

rights complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging use of excessive force while 

he was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP). 

The complaint is properly before the undersigned for preliminary screening because 

plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c).

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. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or 

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be 

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:16-cv-01978-SK Document 4 Filed 04/27/16 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

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 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state 

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on October 30, 2015, PBSP Correctional Officer Loftin shot 

him in the neck with a 40mm “block gun” during an altercation with another prisoner. 

ECF No.1 (Compl.) at 5. According to plaintiff, the shot was intentional “to injure 

plaintiff” because Loftin had just witnessed plaintiff fall to the floor “helpless” after the 

other prisoner had struck him. Id. 

Plaintiff seeks damages from Loftin. He also seeks damages from PBSP Deputy 

Warden D. Bardbury and Sergeant J. Silva because “had [they] properly trained and 

supervised Defendant Loftin’s possession and use of the 40mm block gun then plaintiff 

would not have been shot for being a victim of attack by another prisoner.” Id. at 6.

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations state an arguably cognizable § 1983 

claim for damages against Loftin for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (prison officials use 

excessive force in violation of 8th Amendment if force is used maliciously and sadistically 

to cause harm, rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline). But the 

same cannot be said of plaintiff’s allegations regarding Silva and/or Bradbury.

A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 only if the supervisor was personally 

involved in the constitutional deprivation, or if there is a sufficient causal connection 

between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. 

Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). The supervisor also must have had the 

requisite state of mind to establish liability, which turns on the requirement of the 

particular claim — and, more specifically, on the state of mind required by the particular 

claim — not on a generally applicable concept of supervisory liability. Oregon State Univ. 

Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, there is no indication 

Case 3:16-cv-01978-SK Document 4 Filed 04/27/16 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

whatsoever that Bradbury and/or Silva “knowingly” acquiesced to any Eighth Amendment 

violations by Lifton, which is the minimum requirement for an Eighth Amendment claim 

based upon deliberate indifference. See id. at 1074-75 & n.18. Plaintiff’s mere 

speculation that had Bradbury and Silva properly trained and supervised Loftin, then 

Loftin would not have shot plaintiff, at most states a claim for negligence or gross 

negligence against Bradbury and/or Silva not cognizable under § 1983. See Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n.4 (1994); see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989) (under no circumstances is there liability under § 1983 solely because one 

is responsible for the actions or omissions of another). Plaintiff’s allegations regarding 

Bradbury and Silva will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Plaintiff’s action for damages under § 1983 may 

proceed against Loftin only. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 

without prepayment of fees, a copy of the operative complaint in this matter and all 

attachments thereto, a magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form, 

and a copy of this order on Correctional Officer Loftin at PBSP. (Deputy Warden D. 

Bradbury and Sergeant J. Silva are dismissed.) The clerk also shall serve a copy of this 

order on plaintiff.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. No later than 90 days from the date of this order, defendants shall 

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

summary judgment must be supported by adequate factual documentation and must 

conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits 

all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. 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. 

Case 3:16-cv-01978-SK Document 4 Filed 04/27/16 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

Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 

154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for summary 

judgment). A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies 

(where such a motion, rather than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, is 

appropriate) must be accompanied by a similar notice. Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 

1008 (9th Cir. 2012); Woods, 684 F.3d at 935 (notice requirement set out in Wyatt v. 

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Albino v. Baca, 

747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), must be served concurrently with motion to 

dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies). 

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

judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall so inform the court prior to the date their 

motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff must serve and file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the dispositive motion not more than 28 days after the motion is served and 

filed. 

c. 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 contradicts the facts shown in the defendant’s 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 

Case 3:16-cv-01978-SK Document 4 Filed 04/27/16 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

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).

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit 

without prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order 

to dispute any “factual record” presented by the defendants in their motion to dismiss. 

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). You have the right to present 

any evidence to show that you did exhaust your available administrative remedies before 

coming to federal court. Such evidence may include: (1) declarations, which are 

statements signed under penalty of perjury by you or others who have personal knowledge 

of relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents – documents accompanied by a 

declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other sworn 

papers such as answers to interrogatories or depositions; (3) statements in your complaint 

insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you have personal 

knowledge of the matters state therein. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust, the court can decide disputed issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. 

Stratton, 697 F.3d at 1008-09. 

(The Rand and Wyatt/Stratton notices above do not excuse defendants’ obligation 

to serve said notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

available administrative remedies and motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d 

at 935.)

d. Defendants must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 

14 days after the opposition is served and filed. 

e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply is due. 

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 

3. 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.

Case 3:16-cv-01978-SK Document 4 Filed 04/27/16 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

4. 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.

5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

court and all parties 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 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016 ____________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01978-SK Document 4 Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 6