Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00140/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00140-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beers
Defendant
Nola Grannis
Defendant
Vidal McGee
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIDAL McGEE, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BEERS;

APPEALS COORDINATOR NOLA

GRANNIS; WARDEN ROBERT

HOREL,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-0140 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where plaintiff was

formerly housed. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.

ANALYSIS

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

which 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). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

Case 3:10-cv-00140-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

(9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1986-87. 

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 law. 

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

B. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that upon his arrival at PBSP, he informed defendant

Correctional Officer Beers that he needed to be housed in a lower bunk because he suffered

from seizures. Beers denied the request because, while plaintiff had a medical “chrono”

authorizing such placement from the prison where he had previously been housed, he did not

have such a chrono from PBSP. Approximately two weeks later, plaintiff had a seizure, fell off

of his top bunk, and suffered injuries on his head and neck when he hit the floor. Plaintiff’s

allegations, when liberally construed, state a cognizable claim for relief against defendant Beers

for deliberate indifference to his safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as well as

cognizable supplemental state law claims under the California constitution and California Penal

Code § 147. 

Plaintiff has improperly included as a defendant Appeals Coordinator N. Grannis, who

Case 3:10-cv-00140-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

did no more than fail to grant his administrative appeals. There is no constitutional right to a

jail administrative appeal or grievance system. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir.1988); see Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996) (prison grievance

procedure is procedural right that does not give rise to protected liberty interest requiring

procedural protections of Due Process Clause). As plaintiff had no federal constitutional right

to a properly functioning appeal system, Grannis’s allegedly incorrect decision on an

administrative appeal did not amount to a violation of his right to due process. Consequently,

the claims against Grannis will be dismissed.

Plaintiff also names as the PBSP Warden, Robert Horel, as a defendant, but makes no

allegations as to how Horel was involved in the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights. Rather,

plaintiff apparently names him on the theory that he is liable for constitutional violation by his

subordinate, defendant Beers. There is no respondeat superior liability under Section 1983,

however. Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Consequently, the claims

against defendant Horel will also be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

1. The claims against defendants Grannis and Horel are DISMISSED. 

2. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter and copies of this order upon

defendants Correctional Officer BEERS at Pelican Bay State Prison. A courtesy copy of the

complaint and this order shall also be mailed to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

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

a. No later than ninety days from the date this order is filed, defendants shall file

a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. 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 the plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date of service of the

Case 3:10-cv-00140-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

motion. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is

provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc),

and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, Alameida v. Wyatt, 124 S.Ct 50 (2003).

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen days after the date of

service of the opposition. 

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. 

4. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on defendant, or

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document

to defendant or defendant’s counsel.

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.

6. It is the 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.10\MCGEE0140.SRV.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-00140-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

NOTICE -- WARNING

(SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

NOTICE -- WARNING 

(EXHAUSTION)

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you

did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations

(statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, 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. 

If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and

there will be no trial. 

Case 3:10-cv-00140-WHA Document 4 Filed 01/28/10 Page 5 of 5