Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00735/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00735-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Cisneros
Plaintiff
S. Cupp
Defendant
J. Cuske
Defendant
D. Melton
Defendant
K. Ohland
Defendant
J. Vangilder
Defendant
J. Vasquez
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

DANIEL CISNEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VANGILDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00735-DMR (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison - Sacramento, has 

filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from alleged 

constitutional violations that occurred while he was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison 

(“PBSP”). 

Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this matter has been assigned 

to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 1 at 4. 

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 4. His previously-filed 

request for appointment of counsel has also been denied. Id.

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at 

PBSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In his complaint, Plaintiff states the following claims: (1) excessive force stemming from a 

June 4, 2015 incident; (2) deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs based on a denial of 

medical attention following the June 4, 2015 incident; and (3) state law claims for negligence.

Plaintiff names the following Defendants, who are prison officials at PBSP: Correctional Officers 

J. Vangilder and J. Vasquez; Lieutenants S. Cupp and K. Ohland; Sergeant J. Cuske; and Captain 

D. Melton. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and monetary damages.

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 8
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

II. 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 governmental entity. 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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. 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. West v. 

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

B. Excessive Force and Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

Plaintiff alleges that on June 4, 2015, he was the victim of excessive force and that he was 

subsequently denied medical care. Dkt. 1 at 8-15.1

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined 

are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 

(1993). “After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes 

cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 

312, 319 (1986) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation and citation omitted). With respect to 

excessive force, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to 

maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). But not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to 

a federal cause of action. Id. at 9. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual 

punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical 

 1 Page number citations refer to those assigned by the court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Plaintiff.

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 8
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

force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Id. 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, 

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v. 

Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves 

an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of 

the defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. A “serious” medical 

need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or 

the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a substantial 

risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer 

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that sometime around 3:00 p.m. on June 4, 2015, Defendants

Vangilder and Vasquez were engaging in unprofessional conduct and “‘horse playing’ with a 

dangerous chemical weapon, the T-16 O.C. Expulsion Grenade.” Dkt. 1 at 8. Such actions caused 

Defendant Vangilder to “drop said grenade, which then caused the T-16 O.C. Expulsion Grenade 

to explode and disperse chemical agents/vapors into C and D pods,” including the area near 

Plaintiff’s cell. Id. at 9. Plaintiff states he “began to choke, cough, gag and experience painful

burning in his eyes, throught [sic] and lungs” from the chemical agent being dispersed. Id.

Plaintiff requested medical attention, but Defendants Vangilder and Vasquez ignored his pleas for 

help. Id. at 9-11. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations of excessive force and denial of 

medical attention are sufficient to proceed against Defendants Vangilder and Vasquez.

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Cupp, Cuske, Ohland, and Melton knew that the 

expended grenade had dispersed painful chemical vapors, that Plaintiff had been exposed to the 

vapors, that Plaintiff had not been decontaminated or given medical attention, that the pod had not 

been decontaminated, and that there was no air circulating into the pod. Id. at 12. Despite this 

knowledge, Defendants Cupp, Cuske, Ohland and Melton did nothing to aid Plaintiff. Id. Thus, 

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 8
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

liberally construed, these allegations of denial of medical attention are sufficient to proceed 

against Defendants Cupp, Cuske, Ohland, and Melton.

C. State Law Claims

Liberally construed, the complaint also states cognizable California state law claims for 

negligence. Dkt. 1 at 16-18. The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that “‘district 

courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the 

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 

Article III of the United States Constitution.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Therefore, the court will 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the aforementioned state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff complaint states cognizable claims of excessive force against Defendants 

Vangilder and Vasquez.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims of deliberate indifference to his 

medical needs against Defendants Vangilder, Vasquez, Cupp, Cuske, Ohland, and Melton.

3. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

4. 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 

and all attachments thereto (dkt. 1), a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, and a copy of 

this Order to the following Defendants at PBSP: Correctional Officers J. Vangilder and J. 

Vasquez; Lieutenants S. Cupp and K. Ohland; Sergeant J. Cuske; and Captain D. Melton. 

The Clerk shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order to the State 

Attorney General’s Office in San Francisco. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this 

Order to Plaintiff.

5. 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 complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this action and asked by the court, on 

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 4 of 8
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

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 be 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 date 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. Defendants shall also respond to the Notice of Assignment of Prisoner 

Case to a United States Magistrate Judge for Trial by filing a consent/declination form on 

the date the Answer is due. 

6. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date their answer is due, Defendants 

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion must be 

supported by adequate factual documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from 

the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand2 notice 

so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to 

oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out 

in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss 

for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice. 

However, the court notes that under the new law of the circuit, in the rare event that a failure to 

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

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 5 of 8
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 California

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, Defendants may move for dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) as opposed to the previous practice of moving under an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 

F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), should be raised by a 

defendant as an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Otherwise if a failure to exhaust is not clear on 

the face of the complaint, Defendants must produce evidence proving failure to exhaust in a 

motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Id. If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff shows a failure to exhaust, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment 

under Rule 56. Id. But if material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied and the 

district judge rather than a jury should determine the facts in a preliminary proceeding. Id. at 

1168.

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 Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the court 

and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days after the date on which 

Defendants’ motion is filed. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that 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 contradicts the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and 

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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

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, 154 

F.3d at 962-63.

Plaintiff also is advised that—in the rare event that Defendants argue that the failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint—a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. To avoid dismissal, you have the right to present any evidence to show that you did 

exhaust your available administrative remedies before coming to federal court. Such evidence 

may include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed under penalty of perjury by you or 

others who have personal knowledge of relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents—

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; (3) statements 

in your complaint insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you have 

personal knowledge of the matters state therein. As mentioned above, in considering a motion to 

dismiss for failure to exhaust under Rule 12(b)(6) or failure to exhaust in a summary judgment 

motion under Rule 56, the district judge may hold a preliminary proceeding and decide disputed 

issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168.

(The notices above do not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve similar notices again 

concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies and 

motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935.)

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the 

date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

e. 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. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Leave of the court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose 

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

8. All communications by Plaintiff with the court must be served on Defendants or 

their counsel, once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to them.

9. 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. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 

while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 

address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 

directed to the pro se party by the court has been returned to the court as not deliverable, and 

(2) the court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro 

se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 

10. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2016

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00735-HSG Document 5 Filed 07/08/16 Page 8 of 8