Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00468/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00468-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jamal Easterling
Plaintiff
Erwin
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 

JAMAL EASTERLING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERWIN, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-00468-JCS (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; 

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 

TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 

MOTION; 

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 

INTRODUCTION 

In this federal civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state 

prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges defendant, a physician at Salinas Valley State Prison, 

failed to treat his fractured finger and thereby violated the Eighth Amendment. The 

complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).1

 

The complaint states a cognizable claim. Therefore, in response to the complaint, 

defendant is directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion on or 

before July 18, 2016. The Court further directs that defendant is to adhere to the notice 

 

1 Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Compl. at 4.) The magistrate judge, 

then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been served or 

consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th 

Cir. 1995). 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WHA Document 4 Filed 04/19/16 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 

provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order. 

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 

Plaintiff alleges that on June 5, 2015 he injured his left index finger while playing 

basketball at Salinas Valley State Prison. He immediately sought medical treatment. 

X-rays showed he had a “major dislocation” and a “fracture.” Even after seeing the x-rays, 

Dr. Erwin, a physician at Salinas Valley, gave him no treatment and asked prison guards to 

escort plaintiff out. 

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WHA Document 4 Filed 04/19/16 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 

The next day, his hand became numb and turned purple. When it was seen by 

prison medical staff, they sent plaintiff to a hospital, where his finger was reset. He was 

then scheduled for emergency surgery to treat the fracture and a tear to his left index 

finger. 

Plaintiff alleges these facts show that Erwin was deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs. When liberally construed, plaintiff’s claim is cognizable under 

section 1983. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and a Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction consent form and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of 

fees, a copy of the operative complaint in this matter (Docket No. 1), all attachments 

thereto, and a copy of this order upon Dr. Erwin, a physician at Salinas Valley State 

Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the complaint and this order to the 

California Attorney General’s Office. 

2. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of this order, defendant shall file 

a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claims in 

the complaint found to be cognizable above. 

 a. If defendant elects 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), defendant 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. Defendant is 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 3:16-cv-00468-WHA Document 4 Filed 04/19/16 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 

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 

and served on defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendant’s 

motion is filed. 

4. Defendant 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 

defendant, or defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 

copy of the document to defendant or defendant’s 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 serves 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 3:16-cv-00468-WHA Document 4 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court 

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 

Da

Rule 5

summa

there i

dispute

who as

law, w

for sum

sworn 

Instead

to inter

that c

docum

If you 

if appr

granted

Rand v

IT IS S

ated: April

56 tells you

ary judgmen

is no genui

e about any

sked for su

hich will en

mmary judg

testimony)

d, you must

rrogatories,

ontradict t

ments and sh

do not subm

ropriate, m

d, your case

v. Rowland,

SO ORDER

l 19, 2016

u what yo

nt. Genera

ine issue o

y fact that w

ummary jud

nd your cas

gment that 

), you cann

t set out spe

, or authen

the facts s

how that th

mit your ow

may be ent

e will be dis

 154 F.3d 9

RED.

5

ou must do

ally, summa

of material 

would affec

dgment is e

se. When a 

is properly 

not simply 

ecific facts i

nticated doc

shown in 

ere is a gen

wn evidenc

tered again

smissed and

952, 962–63

 

o in order 

ary judgme

fact — th

ct the resul

entitled to 

a party you a

supported 

rely on wh

in declarati

cuments, as

the defen

nuine issue 

e in opposi

nst you. I

d there will 

3 (9th Cir. 1

________

JOSEPH 

 Chief Ma

to oppose 

ent must be

hat is, if th

lt of your c

judgment a

are suing m

by declara

hat your co

ions, deposi

s provided 

ndants’ dec

of materia

ition, summ

If summary

 be no trial.

1998). 

__________

C. SPERO

agistrate Jud

a motion 

 granted wh

here is no r

case, the pa

as a matter

makes a mot

ations (or ot

omplaint sa

itions, answ

in Rule 56

clarations 

al fact for tr

mary judgm

y judgment

. 

_________

O 

dge 

for 

hen 

real 

arty 

r of 

tion 

ther 

ays. 

wers 

6(e), 

and 

rial. 

ent, 

t is 

_

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WHA Document 4 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court 

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 

JA

ER

Dis

sai

dep

rec

Jam

Sal

P.O

Sol

Da

AMAL EAS

v. 

RWIN, 

I, the un

strict Court, 

That on

d copy(ies) i

positing said

ceptacle loca

mal Easterli

linas Valley

O. Box 1050

ledad, CA 9

ated: April 19

TERLING, 

Plaintiff, 

Defendant.

ndersigned, 

Northern Di

n April 19, 2

in a postage 

d envelope in

ated in the Cl

ng ID: F-417

State Prison

0

3960 

9, 2016 

UNITED

NORTHER

.

hereby certi

istrict of Cal

016, I SERV

paid envelo

n the U.S. M

lerk's office.

722 C1-2

n

6

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

fy that I am 

lifornia. 

VED a true a

ope addressed

Mail, or by pla

.

2266

Su

Cl

By

K

H

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

CERTIFIC

an employe

and correct c

d to the pers

acing said co

usan Y. Soon

lerk, United

y:_________

Karen Hom, D

Honorable JO

COURT 

IFORNIA 

16-cv-00468

CATE OF S

ee in the Offi

copy(ies) of 

son(s) herein

opy(ies) into

ng 

d States Distr

___________

Deputy Clerk

OSEPH C. SP

8-JCS 

SERVICE 

ice of the Cl

the attached

nafter listed, 

o an inter-off

rict Court 

_______ 

k to the 

PERO 

erk, U.S. 

d, by placing 

by 

ffice delivery

Case 3:16-cv-00468-WHA Document 4 Filed 04/19/16 Page 6 of 6