Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04726/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04726-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz
Plaintiff
Gutierrez
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

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUTIERREZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04726-HSG 

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) officer Gutierrez. His complaint is 

now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He has been granted leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis in a separate order.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 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).

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 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

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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

B. Complaint

The complaint makes the following allegations. Plaintiff filed staff complaints against 

PBSP Officers Showers, Jarvis, Tincher, and Kumbat for sexually harassing him. On January 19, 

2019, named defendant PBSP Officer Gutierrez retaliated against plaintiff for filing these 

complaints by sexually harassing plaintiff. Specifically, while conducting a clothed body search 

of plaintiff, Officer Gutierrez cupped and grasped plaintiff’s genitals in order to intentionally 

inflict pain. Officer Gutierrez then ran his right hand in a karate-chop style between plaintiff’s 

buttocks, causing unpleasant and offensive touching and humiliation. Afterwards, Officer 

Gutierrez stated that he felt nothing between plaintiff’s legs and that the patdown search was done 

“for the white girls,” referring to the officers against whom plaintiff had filed staff complaints. 

Dkt. No. 1. 

A prisoner may state an Eighth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for sexual 

harassment if the alleged sexual harassment was sufficiently harmful, i.e., a departure from “the 

evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” and the defendant 

acted with intent to harm the prisoner. See Thomas v. District of Columbia, 887 F. Supp. 1, 3-4 

(D.D.C. 1995) (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 8 (1992)) (internal quotations and 

citation omitted). When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, 

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 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

contemporary standards of decency are always violated, see Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, and no lasting 

physical injury is required to state a cause of action, Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196 

(9th Cir. 2000). Sexual assault, coercion and harassment certainly may violate contemporary 

standards of decency and cause physical and psychological harm. See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 

F.2d 1521, 1525–31 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc). Liberally construed, the complaint’s allegations

that, during a clothed body search, Officer Gutierrez cupped and grasped plaintiff’s genitals and 

ran his right hand in a karate-chop style between plaintiff’s buttocks in order to intentionally 

inflict pain state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. 

The complaint also states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Within the prison context, a viable claim of 

First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took 

some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and 

that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 

did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.”) (footnote omitted).

C. Motion of Ex Parte of Default

Plaintiff has also filed a pleading titled “Motion of Ex Parte of Default.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. 

In this pleading, plaintiff states that he seeks “ex parte of default” against North Kern State Prison 

law librarian Armendadez because, on July 9, 2019, Ms. Armendadez denied him pleading paper 

and manila envelopes. Id. Plaintiff requests that the Court provide him with legal supplies as 

requested. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that he has been denied his right to email civil rights actions, 

to mail legal documents, and to have duplicating services, in violation of Section 3162 and 

3165(a) of the California Code of Regulations, title 15. Id. 

This motion is DENIED. First, this motion is unrelated to the allegations made in the 

complaint. Second, these allegations arise out of events at North Kern State Prison, which is 

located in Kern County, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 

U.S.C. § 84(b). Third, it is unclear on what grounds plaintiff is seeking relief. Rule 55 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for a clerk’s entry of default only against a party that has 

failed to plead or otherwise defend, which is inapplicable here.

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows.

1. The complaint states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim and a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Officer Gutierrez.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for ex parte of default is DENIED. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.

3. 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 (Dkt. No. 1), and a copy 

of this order upon defendant Officer Gutierrez at Pelican Bay State Prison, 5905 Lake Earl Drive, 

Crescent City, CA 95531. A courtesy copy of the complaint with attachments and this order shall 

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

4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this Order is filed, Defendant must file 

and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a motion to stay as 

indicated above. If Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 

judgment, Defendant must so inform the Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for 

summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, 

timely, and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. 

Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 

F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A 

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies similarly must be 

accompanied by a Wyatt notice. Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012).

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the date the 

motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 

provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff also must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding motions to dismiss for nonexhaustion provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion to dismiss. 

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

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 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

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

hearing will be held on the motion. 

5. Plaintiff is advised that 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(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. Rand v. 

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order to dispute any 

“factual record” presented by Defendant in his motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

(The Rand and Wyatt notices above do not excuse Defendant’s obligation to serve said 

notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative 

remedies and motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant’s 

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant’s counsel. The Court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until Defendant’s 

counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to Defendant, 

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 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

but once Defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to counsel rather than 

directly to Defendant.

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 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

8. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly 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). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

9. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought

to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case on 

any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/2/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04726-HSG Document 9 Filed 01/02/20 Page 6 of 6