Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02861/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02861-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Contra Costa County
Defendant
Herjinder Dhanoa
Defendant
Felisa
Defendant
Joy Kick
Defendant
Andy Li
Plaintiff
Dennis McBride
Defendant
Sam Rosales
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDY LI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02861-EMC 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Docket No. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Andy Li, an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility in Martinez, California, filed a pro 

se civil rights complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the 

Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

II. BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Andy Li alleges the following about his medical care at the Martinez 

Detention Center in Contra Costa County: In November 2015, Mr. Li told nurses Herjinder 

Dhanoa and Joy Kick that he had eye pains and requested an eye exam. Mr. Dhanoa and Ms. Kick 

said they would consult Dr. Dennis McBride, but no pain medications were provided. On April 

27, 2016, Mr. Li filed a grievance, and nurse Felisa told him to use “„phone‟ triage sick call,” 

which he did and asked for pain medications while he waited for his optometry appointment. 

Docket No. 1 at 3. “No actions were taken by nurse Felisa.” Id. At the highest level of the 

grievance system, MDF medical health administrator Sam Rosales on May 3, 2016 informed Mr. 

Li that MDF medical staff would not give him any pain medications. “Contra Costa County 

condones an unofficial practice and policy of not providing pain medications when requested by 

it‟s inmates.” Id. (error in source).

Case 3:16-cv-02861-EMC Document 5 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 5
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

For the Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

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). 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. See id. at § 1915A(b). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Deliberate indifference to an inmate‟s serious medical needs amounts to the cruel and 

unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1976). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) 

the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is deliberately 

indifferent to the inmate‟s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against all 

the defendants for deliberate indifference to Mr. Li‟s serious medical needs.1 The complaint 

alleges that the three nurses, a doctor and a health administrator have refused to provide 

medications to relieve the eye pain of which Mr. Li has complained and have failed to schedule an 

eye exam to deal with the alleged eye pain. 

The complaint also adequately alleges a claim under Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 

U.S. 658 (1978), against Contra Costa County. The County allegedly has a practice and policy of 

 

1

The complaint does not allege whether Mr. Li was a pretrial detainee or a convict at the relevant 

times. If Mr. Li was a pretrial detainee rather than a convict, his claim would arise under the 

Fourteenth Amendment‟s Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment‟s Cruel and 

Unusual Punishment Clause. Even though pretrial detainees‟ claims arise under the Due Process 

Clause, the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating those claims. See Carnell v. 

Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Case 3:16-cv-02861-EMC Document 5 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 5
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

For the Northern District of California

allowing jail medical providers not to provide pain medications for inmates, and that allegedly has 

led to Mr. Li‟s suffering.

IV. CONCLUSION

1. The complaint states cognizable claims against the defendants for an Eighth 

Amendment claim against all the defendants. 

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

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of all the documents in the 

case file upon the following defendants:

▪ Contra Costa County

▪ Joy Kick (nurse)

▪ Herjinder Dhanoa (nurse)

▪ Nurse Felisa (nurse)

▪ Dr. Dennis McBride

▪ Sam Rosales (health administrator)

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

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than December 16, 2016, defendants must file and serve a motion 

for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case 

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

the motion is due. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment, defendants must provide to 

plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time they file such a 

motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). 

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

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than January 13, 2017. Plaintiff 

must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this 

order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and 

served no later than January 27, 2017.

Case 3:16-cv-02861-EMC Document 5 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 5
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

For the Northern District of California

4. Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for 

motions for summary judgment:

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. Rand 

v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 

he is seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if a 

motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the 

plaintiff‟s case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on a Defendant‟s 

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to the Defendant‟s counsel. The Court may 

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

Defendant‟s counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly 

to the Defendant, but once a Defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 

counsel rather than directly to that Defendant. 

6. 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 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. 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 

Case 3:16-cv-02861-EMC Document 5 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 5
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

For the Northern District of California

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 must file a notice of change of address in every 

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02861-EMC Document 5 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 5