Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06112/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06112-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Alba
Defendant
Ron Davis
Defendant
L. Gunn
Defendant
L. Melgoza
Defendant
M. Nelson
Defendant
Richard Penunuri
Plaintiff
J. Smith
Defendant
O. Smith
Defendant
T. Tran
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

RICHARD PENUNURI,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06112-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; 

ORDER DIRECTING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE A

DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR 

NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Richard Penunuri has stated Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 

against his jailors at San Quentin State Prison. The Court directs defendants to file in 

response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or 

before May 18, 2020. 

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

Case 3:19-cv-06112-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 6
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

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. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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

B. Legal Claims 

Penunuri alleges that on October 8, 2018 San Quentin prison guards R. Alba, 

L. Gunn, J. Smith, L. Melgoza, Lt. M. Nelson, Sgt. T. Tran, and O. Smith used excessive 

force, or assisted in the use of excessive force, against him. When liberally construed, 

Penunuri has stated Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Alba, Gunn, 

J. Smith, Melgoza, Nelson, Tran, and O. Smith. 

Papers attached to the complaint show that the allegations arise from a cell 

extraction of plaintiff, which was conducted after Penunuri allegedly “covered up his cell 

door [thereby] preventing staff” from conducting security checks. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 

25.) These papers state that the incident was video-recorded by another prison guard, V. 

Aquino, and that the footage was stored into the E-4 evidence locker on the Captain’s 

Case 3:19-cv-06112-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 6
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

Porch. (Id. at 26.) 

All other claims are DISMISSED. Penunuri’s claims against the warden, Ron 

Davis, are DISMISSED. Davis’s sole action was to appoint O. Smith as the administrative 

officer of the day, which is not enough to show liability. There is no respondeat superior 

liability under § 1983, see Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), which 

means that a person is not automatically held responsible simply because he or she is a 

supervisor of an employee who commits a wrong. It is not enough that the supervisor 

merely has a supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the 

supervisor “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed 

to act to prevent them.” Id. (emphasis added). There is nothing in the complaint that 

indicates personal knowledge or involvement. 

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 (Dkt. 

No. 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the following persons at San 

Quentin State Prison: R. Alba, L. Gunn, J. Smith, L. Melgoza, Lt. M. Nelson, Sgt. T. 

Tran, and O. Smith. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this 

order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

2. On or before May 18, 2020, defendants shall file a motion for summary 

judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the 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 a motion for summary judgment, as required by 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).

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 

Case 3:19-cv-06112-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 6
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

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. 

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. 

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.

a. If the claims found cognizable in this order involve excessive force or

prison discipline, defendant(s) have thirty days from the date of service of the summons 

and complaint to produce to plaintiff all documents related to any incident reports, 

investigations, or Rules Violation Reports that were generated as a result of the incident(s) 

described in the complaint, and all video recordings of such incident(s). If no such reports 

or video recordings were generated, or if no investigation occurred, defendant(s) shall 

inform plaintiff of this in writing;

b. If the claims found cognizable in this order involve medical care, 

defendants have thirty days from the date of service of the summons and complaint to 

produce to plaintiff his medical records related to his medical condition(s) alleged in the 

complaint and any treatment he received for such condition(s). 

Case 3:19-cv-06112-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 6
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

Parties may object to the production of any of these materials. Any objections shall 

be made in writing and served on all parties, but not filed with the Court. Any disputes 

regarding the production of these materials shall be resolved according to the requirements 

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Civil Local Rule 37. 

8. 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.

9. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be 

given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions 

at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or 

otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 

2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when they file and serve 

any motion for summary judgment: 

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, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

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

Case 3:19-cv-06112-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 6
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

10. 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).

11. Plaintiff is reminded that if he files an amended complaint at any time during

the litigation of this (or any other) suit, he must file it on this Court’s form. Any complaint 

not on the Court’s form will be rejected as an improper filing. 

12. The Clerk shall terminate Ron Davis as a defendant. All claims against him

are DISMISSED. 

13. The Clerk shall modify the docket to show that “D. Smith” is “O. Smith.”

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 14, 2020

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06112-WHO Document 9 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 6