Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03345/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03345-0/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

Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Wong345srv 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIJAK WIE WONG, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, 

et. al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3345 JF (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE 

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint in Monterey Superior Court, alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights

based upon Defendants’ medical care and treatment. Defendant, Salinas Valley State Prison,

removed this action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1441(b). 

The Court initially ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of his current address and whether he

wished to continue to pursue the claims set forth in his complaint. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a

notice of intent to prosecute. The Court will review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915

and order service of the complaint on the remaining Defendants. 

\\\

**E-filed 2/8/07**

Case 5:03-cv-03345-JF Document 4 Filed 02/08/07 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 Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Wong345srv 2

BACKGROUND

On April 4, 2002, Plaintiff’s blood and fingerprints were taken for a DNA sample

pursuant to California Penal Code § 296(a). Plaintiff told prison staff that he felt light-headed

and dizzy. Prison staff told Plaintiff that he needed to stand up to complete the fingerprinting

process. Plaintiff fell, blacked out, and hit his head on the concrete floor. Plaintiff claims that

prison staff continued to take his fingerprints while he laid on the floor unconscious. Medical

Technical Assistant E. Willis arrived and Plaintiff was transported to the B Facility Health

Services. Dr. Thor told Plaintiff to rest for awhile and then examined him. Dr. Thor checked

Plaintiff’s eyes and knee cap responses and prescribed Tylenol. 

Approximately one week later, Plaintiff submitted a request to be seen by the doctor

complaining of vomiting, dizziness, stiff neck, blurred vision and headaches. Dr. Wong

examined Plaintiff on April 12, 2002. Plaintiff requested an X-ray and re-evaluation of his

condition. However, Dr. Wong did not re-examine Plaintiff, or order further treatment. Plaintiff

maintains that Dr. Thor and Dr. Lee falsified medical records used in his prison administrative

appeal. Plaintiff names Defendants Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), SVSP Medical

Department, Dr. Daniel Thor, Dr. Charles Dudley Lee and Dr. Andrew Wong at SVSP in his

complaint. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive monetary damages. 

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). 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. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

Case 5:03-cv-03345-JF Document 4 Filed 02/08/07 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

Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Wong345srv 3

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). To state a claim a plaintiff must show a specific

constitutional or federal guarantee safeguarding the interests that have been invaded. Paul v.

Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976). 

 B. Plaintiff’s Claim 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. 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,

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v.

Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of “deliberate indifference”

involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the

nature of the defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. 

A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result

in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or

patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical

condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and

substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a “serious” need for medical

treatment. See id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir.

1990)).

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial

risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but

he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk,

but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the

risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

In order for deliberate indifference to be established, therefore, there must be a

purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin,

Case 5:03-cv-03345-JF Document 4 Filed 02/08/07 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

Order of Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Wong345srv 4

974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.

1985). A finding that the defendant’s activities resulted in “substantial” harm to the prisoner is

not necessary, however. Neither a finding that a defendant’s actions are egregious nor that they

resulted in significant injury to a prisoner is required to establish a violation of the prisoner’s

federal constitutional rights. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060, 1061 (citing Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1992) (rejecting “significant injury” requirement and noting that

Constitution is violated “whether or not significant injury is evident”)). 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has alleged a cognizable claim against the Defendants for

deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The Court will order service of the complaint on

the remaining Defendants. 

 CONCLUSION 

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

without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint in this matter (docket no. 1), all attachments

thereto, and copies of this order on Defendants DR. DANIEL THOR, SVSP Chief Physician and

Surgeon; DR. CHARLES DUDLEY LEE, SVSP Health Care Manager; and DR. ANDREW

WONG, SVSP Facility B Doctor. The Clerk shall also 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 sixty (60) days from the date of this order, Defendants shall

file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or shall notify the Court that

Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion. The motion

shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 

Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified

immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. 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.

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

Case 5:03-cv-03345-JF Document 4 Filed 02/08/07 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 Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Wong345srv 5

Court and served on Defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants’ motion

is filed. 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 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 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 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, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (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). 

c. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

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. 

3. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant,

Case 5:03-cv-03345-JF Document 4 Filed 02/08/07 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 Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Wong345srv 6

or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to Defendant or Defendants’ counsel.

\\\

4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

and the 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 for failure to prosecute

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

5. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

2/8/07

Case 5:03-cv-03345-JF Document 4 Filed 02/08/07 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 Service

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.03\Wong345srv 7

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Tijak Wie Wong

J-49600

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1040

Soledad, CA 93960-1040 

Kay K. Yu

CA Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case 5:03-cv-03345-JF Document 4 Filed 02/08/07 Page 7 of 7