Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00101/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00101-0/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 

JEBERIAH MOORE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 18-00101 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

CLERK 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), and its employees.1

 Plaintiff’s 

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

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 

 

1 This matter was reassigned to this Court on January 18, 2018. (Docket No. 5.) 

Case 5:18-cv-00101-EJD Document 9 Filed 05/02/18 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 Californi

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 claims that he has various disabilities, including mobility and bowel issues, 

which require accommodations under the “ADA.” (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff indicates that 

he presented his claims to prison officials, but the response from the prison’s Reasonable 

Accommodation Panel (RAP) was inadequate, (id. at 9), and his appeals of that decision 

have been denied as well, (id. at 2). Although Plaintiff indicates on the first page that he is 

bringing this complaint under § 1983, (Docket No. 1 at 1), he begins his explanation of the 

cause of action by referencing the ADA, (id. at 3), and thereafter continuously refers to the 

“ADA” and violations thereof, (id. at 4-12). 

 Section 1983 permits a plaintiff to enforce rights contained in the United States 

Constitution and defined by federal law. Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1155 (9th 

Cir. 2002). But an alleged violation of federal law may not be vindicated under § 1983 

where “Congress has foreclosed citizen enforcement in the enactment itself, either 

explicitly, or implicitly by imbuing it with its own comprehensive remedial scheme.” Id. 

(citation omitted). Because Title II of the ADA provides a comprehensive remedial 

scheme, plaintiff is precluded from bringing a § 1983 claim for violation of Title II of the 

ADA. See id. (plaintiff cannot bring action under § 1983 against state officials in their 

individual capacities to vindicate rights created by Title II of ADA); Cherry v. City 

Case 5:18-cv-00101-EJD Document 9 Filed 05/02/18 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 Californi

a

College of San Francisco, No. C 04-4981 WHA, 2006 WL 6602454, at *12 (N.D. Cal. 

2006) (extending rationale of Vinson to also preclude action under § 1983 against state 

officials in their official capacities to vindicate rights created by Title II of ADA). Plaintiff 

is limited to seeking relief under the comprehensive remedial scheme provided by Title II 

of the ADA. 

 Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by 

reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the 

services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any 

such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II of the ADA applies to inmates within state 

prisons. See Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998); Armstrong v. 

Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997). To establish a violation of Title II of the 

ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he 

was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard to a 

public entity’s services, programs or activities; and (3) such exclusion or discrimination 

was by reasons of his disability. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). 

In order to recover monetary damages, a plaintiff also must show that the exclusion or 

discrimination was intentional. Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 

2001). Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations that CDCR and SVSP officials are 

discriminating against him based on his disabilities appears to state a cognizable claim 

under Title II of the ADA, and will be served on the named officials. 

CONCLUSION 

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

1. 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 complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Defendants K. 

Green, D. Bright, J. Villafuerte, L. Sainz, and C. Bourne, MD, at Salinas Valley State 

Case 5:18-cv-00101-EJD Document 9 Filed 05/02/18 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 Californi

a

Prison (P.O. Box 1020, Soledad, CA 93960-1020). The Clerk shall also mail a copy of 

this Order to Plaintiff. 

 2. 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 amended 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. 

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

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

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

amended 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 

Case 5:18-cv-00101-EJD Document 9 Filed 05/02/18 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 Californi

a

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). 

 4. 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). 

 5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) 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 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 

Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 

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

Case 5:18-cv-00101-EJD Document 9 Filed 05/02/18 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 Californi

a

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). 

 10. 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: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order of Service 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.18\00101Moore_svc 

5/2/2018

Case 5:18-cv-00101-EJD Document 9 Filed 05/02/18 Page 6 of 6