Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02546/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02546-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Defendant
Gabriel Chavez
Plaintiff
J. Gonnella
Defendant
Hosoham
Defendant
Helen Thornton
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION; DR.

HOSOHAM; J. GONNELLA; HELEN

THORNTON,

Defendants.

/

No. C 16-2546 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed this civil rights case

under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against SVSP officials. He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is ordered served upon

three of the defendants.

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

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

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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:16-cv-02546-WHA Document 11 Filed 11/21/16 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974. 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

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

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

When liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations that state cognizable claims for relief

against defendants Dr. Hosoham, Nurse J. Gonnella, and Nurse Helen Thornton for being

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment

rights.

Plaintiff’s claim against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment bars from the

federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or

subjects of any foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). 

Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state agency, such as the CDCR. 

Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of

Corrections entitled to immunity). Such immunity also covers state law claims brought against

a state in federal court under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1367, such as the

Case 3:16-cv-02546-WHA Document 11 Filed 11/21/16 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

claims asserted here against the CDCR. Raygor v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 534

U.S. 533, 541-42 (2002). Accordingly, the claims against the CDCR will be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. The claims against defendant CDCR are Dismissed.

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

prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this

order upon defendants Dr. Hosoham, Nurse J. Gonnella, and Nurse Helen Thornton at

Salinas Valley State Prison. A courtesy copy of the complaint with attachments and this order

shall also be mailed to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

3. Defendants shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, defendants shall file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are 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. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served

on the plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendant no later than 28 days from the date of service of the motion. 

Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to

him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and

Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date of

service of the opposition.

d. 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. 

e. Along with his motion, defendants shall file proof that they served plaintiff

Case 3:16-cv-02546-WHA Document 11 Filed 11/21/16 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

the Rand warning at the same time they served him with their motion. Failure to do so will

result in the summary dismissal of their motion. 

5. All communications by the plaintiff with the court must be served on defendant, or

defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document

to defendant or defendant’s counsel.

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 16-1 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. It is the 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21 , 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02546-WHA Document 11 Filed 11/21/16 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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking 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 [current Rule 56(c)], that

contradict the facts shown in the defendant's 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.

Case 3:16-cv-02546-WHA Document 11 Filed 11/21/16 Page 5 of 5