Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00810/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00810-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Bowman
Defendant
Garcia
Defendant
Steven C. Scott
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

STEVEN C. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

ROBERT BOWMAN, M.D., and

MTA GARCIA, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-0810 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

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

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

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

(9th Cir. 1990).

///

Case 3:07-cv-00810-WHA Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 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

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 that he has nerve injury which causes him great pain. When he asked

defendant Bowman for stronger pain medication, defendant MTA Garcia told Bowman to deny

it, and Bowman did. This pattern was repeated several times, plus Bowman several times

ignored plaintiff’s requests for medical care. On August 10, 2005, Bowman again denied

plaintiff stronger medication, and also denied plaintiff’s request for an order that he be allowed

double mattresses. As a result, Bowman and plaintiff got into an argument. Bowman

subsequently discontinued plaintiff’s existing pain medication for sixty-five days.

Plaintiff’s allegations appear sufficient to state a claim against the defendants. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion for “a 180 day extension” does not say what date he wants

extended, and at the moment there are no deadlines pending. The motion (document number 5)

is DENIED.

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

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

following defendants: Dr. Robert Bowman and MTA Miss Garcia. Plaintiff states that these

defendants can be found at Salinas Valley State Prison. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this

order on the plaintiff. 

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

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by

adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the

Case 3:07-cv-00810-WHA Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 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

events at issue. 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 their 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

motion. Plaintiff must read the attached pages headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which are 

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

and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so 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 defendants, or

defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document

to defendants or defendants' 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) 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: June 28 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\SCOTT810.SERVE

Case 3:07-cv-00810-WHA Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 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

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.

Case 3:07-cv-00810-WHA Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 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 

(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 3:07-cv-00810-WHA Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 Page 5 of 5