Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03763/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03763-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cullen
Defendant
Gregory C. Harrison
Plaintiff
D. Teat
Defendant
R. Wong
Defendant

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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Harrison03763_svc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY C. HARRISON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. TEAT, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-03763 JW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANT TO FILE

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH

MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO

CLERK

Plaintiff, a California inmate at the San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), has

filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against SQSP officials for

allegedly unconstitutional acts. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

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). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is

Case 3:09-cv-03763-RS Document 5 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 6
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Harrison03763_svc.wpd 2

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or

“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. §

1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Correctional Officer D. Teat sprayed Plaintiff

without provocation on July 6, 2009, causing permanent damage to Plaintiff’s right

eye. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Teat issued a false rule violation

report stating Plaintiff had attempted to batter him . (Id.) Liberally construed,

plaintiff’s claim is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of his Eighth Amendment

right against cruel and unusual punishment. 

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 complaint in this

matter, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon defendant

Correctional Officer D. Teat at San Quentin State Prison (San Quentin, CA 

94964). 

The clerk shall terminate Warden R. Wong and Deputy Warden Cullen as

defendants in this action as the complaint contains no factual allegations against

these defendants to indicate either individual or supervisory liability. 

2. No later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order, defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to

Case 3:09-cv-03763-RS Document 5 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 6
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

1

 The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be

given to pro se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th

Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14.

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Harrison03763_svc.wpd 3

the claims in the amended 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 an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion

pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied

Alameida v. Terhune, 540 U.S. 810 (2003). 

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. 

a. In the event the defendants file an unenumerated motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b), plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:1

The defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground

you have not exhausted your administrative remedies. The

motion will, if granted, result in the dismissal of your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly supported by

declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you

may not simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you

must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, or documents, that contradict the facts shown

in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that

you have in fact exhausted your claims. If you do not submit

your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

Case 3:09-cv-03763-RS Document 5 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 6
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Harrison03763_svc.wpd 4

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

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 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 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 (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). 

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. 

Case 3:09-cv-03763-RS Document 5 Filed 01/15/10 Page 4 of 6
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

Order of Service

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Harrison03763_svc.wpd 5

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.

DATED: JAMES WARE 

United States District Judge

January 4, 2010 

Case 3:09-cv-03763-RS Document 5 Filed 01/15/10 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY CARTER HARRISON SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D. TEAT, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV09-03763 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gregory C. Harrison J-18567

Corcoran State Prison

P. O. Box 3476

Corcoran, Ca 93212

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

1/15/2010 1/15/2010 /s/

Case 3:09-cv-03763-RS Document 5 Filed 01/15/10 Page 6 of 6