Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04641-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Casey
Defendant
Roderick Coleman
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK COLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. CASEY, 

Defendant. /

No. C 09-4641 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE 

INTRODUCTION

Roderick Coleman, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. Also before the court for consideration is Coleman's

response to the order to show cause why pauper status should not be denied. 

BACKGROUND

The acts and omissions giving rise to the claims in this action occurred while Coleman

was incarcerated in Francisco County Jail # 1. Coleman alleges that he received a

disciplinary write-up on June 6, 2009 from deputy Lawsha, who claimed that he was verbally

abusive toward a nurse and charged him with violating jail rules 11, 13, and 17. On June 7,

2009, lieutenant Casey allegedly considered the matter and found Coleman guilty of

violating rule 13. Coleman alleges that he received a 30-day disciplinary lockup as a result

of lieutenant Casey's finding.

Coleman alleges that there were several problems with regard to the disciplinary

decision. First, he appears to contend that his alleged conduct of being verbally abusive did

not amount to a violation of rule 13, which states that "[p]risoners shall obey any order given

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 6 Filed 01/12/10 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

by any staff member at any time." Complaint, ¶ 6 and Ex. 2. Second, he appears to allege

that the disciplinary write-up falsely stated that he admitted to disrupting pill call and

requested a 30-day lockup. Complaint, ¶ 8. Third, the complaint (liberally construed)

appears to allege that he did not receive a notice of rights hearing. Id. at ¶ 9. 

DISCUSSION

A. Review Of Complaint

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). 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. See

28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1),(2).

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

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

Disciplinary segregation as punishment for violation of jail rules and regulations

cannot be imposed without due process, i.e., without complying with the procedural

requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d

517, 523-26 (9th Cir. 1996). Liberally construed, the complaint alleges a cognizable claim

against defendant lieutenant Casey, who allegedly conducted a disciplinary proceeding

without giving adequate notice of the hearing to the inmate and who found the inmate guilty

based on false and insufficient evidence of a violation of jail rule 13. 

B. The Order To Show Cause Regarding Pauper Status

On November 19, 2009, the court ordered Coleman to show cause why the action

should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner may not

bring a civil action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 "if the prisoner has, on 3 or

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 6 Filed 01/12/10 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

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order

identified four prior dismissals that appeared to count under § 1915(g) and ordered Coleman

to show cause why pauper status should not be denied and the referenced action dismissed. 

Coleman filed a letter and declaration in response to the order to show cause on December 4,

2009, although he inexplicably filed it in another of his actions, Coleman v. Forde, Case. No.

C 09-5399 MHP. 

Upon review of Coleman's letter and the case files for the dismissals identified in the

order to show cause, the court now determines that Coleman had only two instead of the

necessary three prior dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g). Coleman's litigation history is

suggestive of a litigant who loses interest in litigation once he starts it rather than one who

has filed enough actions that were determined to be frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Coleman v. Mabang and Soto, Case No. C 94-216

MHP, and Coleman v. Gomez, Case No. C 94-445 MHP, are dismissals that can be counted

under § 1915(g) because they were filed by the same Roderick Coleman as the plaintiff here

and the complaint in each was determined to have failed to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. The other two cases were dismissed for reasons that do not count as

dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g): Coleman v. Gomez, Case No. C 04-751 MHP, was

dismissed because Coleman failed to file a completed pauper application, and Coleman v.

Marshall, Case No. C 92-032 MHP, was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by plaintiff

after defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the order to show

cause is discharged. Plaintiff is not barred from proceeding as a pauper in this action.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Plaintiff has stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against defendant Casey for

violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. 

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 6 Filed 01/12/10 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

without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and this order upon the following

defendant: San Francisco Sheriff's lieutenant Casey, who apparently works at the San

Francisco County Jail # 1. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule

for dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than March 26, 2010, defendant must file and serve a motion

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendant is of the opinion that this

case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he must so inform the court prior to the date

the motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive

motion must be filed with the court and served upon defendant no later than April 30, 2010. 

Plaintiff must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as

he prepares his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make 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, your case will be dismissed and there will be

no trial. (See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they must file and serve the reply

brief no later than May 14, 2010.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may

disregard any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 6 Filed 01/12/10 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

a defendant's counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document

directly to defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be

mailed to counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

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. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly 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). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

must include the case name and case number for this case on any document he submits to this

court for consideration in this case. 

7. Any document plaintiff sends to the court for filing must be sent in an envelope

addressed to the clerk, rather than addressed to the undersigned, so that the materials will

reach the court file and be docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January _8, 2010 ______________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04641-MHP Document 6 Filed 01/12/10 Page 5 of 5