Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04387/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04387-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Barneburg
Defendant
D. Bradbury
Defendant
B. Chaucer
Defendant
K. Harrington
Defendant
Holler
Defendant
Edward Lopez
Plaintiff
D. Love
Defendant
J. Robertson
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EDWARD LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04387-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; 

ORDER DIRECTING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE A

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Edward Lopez has stated due process claims against his jailors at Pelican 

Bay State Prison. The Court directs defendants to file in response to the complaint a 

dispositive motion, or notice regarding such motion, on or before January 22, 2019, 

unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants comply with the 

notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this 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 

Case 3:18-cv-04387-WHO Document 8 Filed 10/25/18 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 California

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 be liberally construed. 

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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. Legal Claims 

Lopez alleges that when his jailors would not allow him to possess an electric hair 

trimmer he purchased, they violated his constitutional rights. He puts forth various claims 

(conspiracy and abuse of power, for example) but, when liberally construed, he has at best 

stated a claim that the deprivation violated his right to due process.1 The other claims are 

 

1 For instance, Lopez alleges the disallowance violated his equal protection rights because 

prisoners at other “Level IV” prisons are allowed to have electric hair trimmers. This does 

not state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, which requires a showing that he 

belongs to a protected class or that a fundamental right is being violated. First, Level IV 

prisoners at Pelican Bay are not a protected class. Second, a prisoner “does not have a 

general right to possess property in prison.” Schrubb v. Tilton, No. C-08-2986 TEH (PR), 

2014 WL 4129577, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2014). “An inmate’s right to inherit, own, 

sell or convey real and/or personal property does not include the right to possess such 

Case 3:18-cv-04387-WHO Document 8 Filed 10/25/18 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 California

DISMISSED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal 

shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the operative complaint in this matter 

(Dkt. No. 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the following persons at 

Pelican Bay State Prison: Holler, a prison guard; B. Chaucer; a sergeant; J. Robertson, 

warden; D. Love, a captain; D. Barneburg, a prison guard; D. Bradbury, chief deputy 

warden; and K. Harrington, associate director. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies 

of the operative complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

2. On or before January 21, 2019, defendants shall file a motion for summary 

judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to 

be cognizable above. 

a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff 

failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by 

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

b. 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. 

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

and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ 

motion is filed. 

 

property within the institutions/facilities of the department.” 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3192. 

Case 3:18-cv-04387-WHO Document 8 Filed 10/25/18 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 California

4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

5. 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. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be 

given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions 

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or 

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 

2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they file and serve 

any motion for summary judgment: 

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 

Case 3:18-cv-04387-WHO Document 8 Filed 10/25/18 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 California

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 

defendants’ 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

11. 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 under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2018

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04387-WHO Document 8 Filed 10/25/18 Page 5 of 5