Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04053/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04053-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elizabeth Alvarez
Defendant
Ron Harris
Defendant
Larvester J. Johnson, Jr.
Plaintiff
Maguire Correctional Facility
Defendant
Gina Phillips
Defendant
Jordanos Tela
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

LARVESTER J. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04053-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 

TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Larvester Johnson has stated due process and Eighth Amendment claims 

against his jailors at the Maguire Correctional Facility (MCF). The Court directs 

defendants to file in response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or notice regarding 

such motion, on or before October 22, 2018, unless an extension is granted. The Court 

further directs that defendants comply with the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a 

and 10 of the conclusion of this order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action was dismissed because Johnson failed to 

keep the Court apprised of his current address. His motion to reopen was denied because 

failed to file a proper amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiff since has filed a proper 

Case 3:17-cv-04053-WHO Document 23 Filed 07/16/18 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

amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 22.) Accordingly, this action is REOPENED and the Clerk 

is directed to modify the docket accordingly. The judgment and the order of dismissal are 

VACATED. (Dkt. Nos. 10 and 11.) 

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 

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 

Johnson alleges that in 2017, MCF “mental health doctors” (i) Ron Harris, (ii) Gina 

Phillips, (iii) Elizabeth Alvarez, and (iv) Jordanos Tela, forced him to wear a suicideCase 3:17-cv-04053-WHO Document 23 Filed 07/16/18 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

prevention suit (a “Ferguson gown”) without providing due process and in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment.1 When liberally construed, Johnson has stated due process and Eighth 

Amendment claims against defendants. His claims of conspiracy and of municipal liability 

are DISMISSED as conclusory. 

Defendant Maguire Correctional Facility is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall add 

Harris, Phillips, Alvarez, and Tela as defendants. 

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Johnson moves for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 21.) The decision to 

request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is within “the 

sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional 

circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the 

merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 

America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact 

that the pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily 

qualify the issues involved as complex. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th 

Cir. 1997). 

In the Ninth Circuit, roughly one-third of new civil litigants in district court are not 

represented by counsel. United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, 2017 Annual Report 40 

(2018), available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/judicial_council/ publications/

AnnualReport2017.pdf. Most, but by no means all, of these litigants are incarcerated. 

There is no doubt that not having a lawyer puts a party at a disadvantage in our adversarial 

system of justice, and the high percentage of civil litigants who cannot afford one threatens 

our ability to dispense equal justice to rich and poor alike, as the judicial oath demands. 

That said, I am compelled to follow controlling precedent and determine if “exceptional 

 

1

Johnson claims defendants violated his equal protection rights, but the Court construes 

his claims as falling under due process. 

Case 3:17-cv-04053-WHO Document 23 Filed 07/16/18 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

circumstances” exist to appoint counsel in the cases before me.

At least at this stage of the proceedings, Johnson has not shown that exceptional 

circumstances exist. His filings are reasoned and sufficiently clear, and the suit does not 

present complex legal issues. Accordingly, Johnson’s motion for the appointment of 

counsel is DENIED. When I review a motion for summary judgment in this case, and can 

evaluate Johnson’s likelihood of success on the merits, I will reconsider the necessity of 

appointing counsel.

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 operative complaint in this matter 

(Dkt. No. 22), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Ron Harris, Gina 

Phillips, Elizabeth Alvarez, and Jordanos Tela at the Maguire Correctional Facility. The 

Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the operative complaint and this order to the 

California Attorney General’s Office.

2. On or before October 22, 2018, 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 

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. 

Case 3:17-cv-04053-WHO Document 23 Filed 07/16/18 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

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.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

Case 3:17-cv-04053-WHO Document 23 Filed 07/16/18 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

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). 

11. 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).

12. The action is REOPENED. The Clerk shall modify the docket accordingly.

13. Defendant Maguire Correctional Facility is DISMISSED.

14. The Clerk shall add Ron Harris, Gina Phillips, Elizabeth Alvarez, and 

Jordanos Tela as defendants. 

15. Johnson’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 21.)

16. The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. No. 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2018

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-04053-WHO Document 23 Filed 07/16/18 Page 6 of 6