Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02235/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-02235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Garcia
Plaintiff
A. A. LaMarque
Defendant
James Tilton
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A. A. LAMARQUE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-02235 CW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff Francisco Garcia, a state prisoner incarcerated at

Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), has filed a pro se civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. 

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim

are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this

judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In his complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants:

SVSP Warden A. A. Lamarque and California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Secretary James Tilton. Plaintiff also

names several Doe Defendants. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief

and monetary damages.

DISCUSSION

I. 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. 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

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 8
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

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.

§ 1915A(b) (1), (2). 

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). Moreover, pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988).

II. Legal Claims

A. Eighth Amendment Claim

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials provide

all prisoners with the basic necessities of life such as food,

clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. 

See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Liberally

construed, Plaintiff's allegation that he became "very sick due to

a serious indigestive [sic] problem" after SVSP prison officials

provided him with "contaminated" well water on or around June, 2004

states a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Defendants Lamarque and Tilton. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

633 (9th Cir. 1988) (when prisoner seeks injunctive relief from

various personnel responsible for operating prison, focus is on

whether combined acts and omissions created unconstitutional living

condition).

B. Claim Against Doe Defendants

In his complaint, Plaintiff identifies "any and all 'John Doe'

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 8
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

Defendants," whose names he intends to learn through discovery. 

The use of Doe Defendants is not favored in the Ninth Circuit. See

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). 

However, where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be known

prior to the filing of a complaint the plaintiff should be given an

opportunity through discovery to identify them. Id. Failure to

afford the plaintiff such an opportunity is error. See Wakefield

v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the

claims against the Doe Defendants are DISMISSED from this action

without prejudice. Should Plaintiff learn the Doe Defendants'

identities through discovery, he may move to file an amendment to

the complaint to add them as named defendants. See Brass v. County

of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1195-98 (9th Cir. 2003).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable claim for the

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against Defendants

Lamarque and Tilton.

2. Plaintiff's claims against the Doe Defendants are

DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. 

3. The Clerk shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for

Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service

of Summons, a copy of the complaint and all attachments thereto

(docket no. 1) and a copy of this Order to the following: SVSP

Warden A. A. Lamarque and CDCR Secretary James Tilton. The Clerk

shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order to

the State Attorney General's Office in San Francisco. The Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 8
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

shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 

4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure requires Defendants to cooperate in saving

unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 

Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendants, after being notified of this

action and asked by the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive

service of the summons, fails to do so, Defendants will be required

to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for

their failure to sign and return the waiver form. If service is

waived, this action will proceed as if Defendants had been served

on the date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule

12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will not be required to serve and file an

answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request

for waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than

would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) 

Defendants are asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of

the waiver form that more completely describes the duties of the

parties with regard to waiver of service of the summons. If

service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before

Defendants have been personally served, the Answer shall be due

sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for waiver was

sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed,

whichever is later. 

5. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following briefing

schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action:

a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 4 of 8
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

Defendants' answer is due, Defendants shall file a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be

supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in

all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If Defendants

are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary

judgment, Defendants 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 Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later

than sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is

filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should

be given to pro se plaintiffs facing a summary judgment motion:

The defendant has 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

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 [in favor of the

defendants], your case will be dismissed and there will

be no trial.

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 5 of 8
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

6

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

banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

(party opposing summary judgment must come forward with evidence

showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element

of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that because he bears the

burden of proving his allegations in this case, he must be prepared

to produce evidence in support of those allegations when he files

his opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. Such evidence

may include sworn declarations from himself and other witnesses to

the incident, and copies of documents authenticated by sworn

declaration. Plaintiff will not be able to avoid summary judgment

simply by repeating the allegations of his complaint.

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, Defendants

shall do so no later than thirty (30) days after the date

Plaintiff's opposition is filed.

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.

6. Discovery may be taken in this action in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave of the Court pursuant

to Rule 30(a)(2) is hereby granted to Defendants to depose

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

7. All communications by 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

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Defendants' counsel.

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.

9. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. Any motion for an extension of time

must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline

sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/7/2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A A LAMARQUE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-02235 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on May 7, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Francisco Garcia K-38818

Calipatria State Prison

P.O. Box 5002

Calipatria, CA 92233

Dated: May 7, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-02235-CW Document 8 Filed 05/07/10 Page 8 of 8