Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06232/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06232-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES C. MCCURDY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THOMAS, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 18-06232 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE ON 

DEFENDANT THOMAS; STRIKING 

ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANT TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

CLERK 

Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a medical official at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”).1

 The 

only claim in this action is the claim against Defendant Thomas of PBSP. Accordingly, all 

other claims are ordered STRICKEN from the complaint, (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate order. 

/// 

/// 

 

1

 In a previously filed action, the Court found Plaintiff failed to exhaust all but two claims 

against two separate defendants. See McCurdy v. Rivero, Case No. 17-01043 BLF (PR), 

(Docket No. 104). In accordance with Plaintiff’s wishes, the claim against Defendant 

Thomas was ordered severed and filed as a separate action. Id., (Docket No. 107). The 

Clerk opened the matter as the instant action, with the “amended” complaint” from the 

earlier action being the operative complaint in this action. (Docket No. 2.) 

Case 5:18-cv-06232-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 5
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

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 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). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff arrived at PBSP on April 18, 2016. (Am. Compl. at 41, 53.) Plaintiff 

claims that Defendant Thomas improperly discontinued his medications, (id. at 41-42, 51-

52), denied him a medical diet and referral to a dietician, (id. at 42, 53), and refused to 

present his case to PBSP’s pain management committee, (id. at 42). Liberally construed, 

Plaintiff’s states a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 

see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, and for inhume prison conditions, see Farmer 

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). 

Furthermore, the issue of exhaustion as to this claim has already been thoroughly 

adjudicated in the previous action. See supra at 1, fn. 1. Accordingly, the Court takes 

judicial notice of that fact in this matter. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2). Accordingly, the 

Court will not entertain any motion for summary judgment based on a failure to exhaust. 

/// 

Case 5:18-cv-06232-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 5
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

CONCLUSION 

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

1. The only claim in this action is the deliberate indifference claim against 

Defendant Thomas at PBSP. All other claims involving other Defendants are hereby 

STRICKEN from the complaint. 

2. 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 amended complaint, (Docket No. 11), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this 

order upon Defendant L. Thomas at Pelican Bay State Prison (P. O. Box 7000, 

Crescent City, CA 95531-7000). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this Order to 

Plaintiff. 

 3. 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 the 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 shown for 

their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is 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 (60) days from the day 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 asked 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 (60) days 

from the date on which the request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date 

the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

Case 5:18-cv-06232-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 5
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

 4. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date service is completed, either 

by a signed waiver or personal service of the complaint, Defendants shall file a motion for 

summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in the complaint 

found to be cognizable above. 

 a. 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. 

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

Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate 

warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 

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

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 

motion is filed. 

 Plaintiff is also 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). 

 6. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after 

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

Case 5:18-cv-06232-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 4 of 5
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

 7. 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. 

 8. 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. 

 9. 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. 

 10. 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). 

 11. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Service 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\06232McCurdy_svc 

Case 5:18-cv-06232-BLF Document 8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 5 of 5