Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01980/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01980-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Davis
Defendant
Christopher A. Geier
Plaintiff
A. Lile
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

CHRISTOPHER A. GEIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01980-JSC 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DENYING 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 3

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”), filed this pro se civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against SQSP officials.1 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is 

ordered served upon Defendants. 

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

§ 1915A(b). 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 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c). (ECF No. 1 at 4.) 

Case 3:16-cv-01980-JSC Document 7 Filed 05/27/16 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

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 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 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).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that SQSP mailroom staff opened confidential mail addressed to him from 

the Marin County Court and from his attorney on three occasions. He further alleges that 

Defendants Lile (the mailroom supervisor) and Davis (the Warden) were informed of this conduct 

and failed to take corrective action. When liberally construed these allegations state a cognizable 

claim against Defendants Lile, Davis and the mailroom staff (who are presently listed as unnamed 

Defendants) for the violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to petition the government. See

O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 

(1972)) (the opening and inspecting of "legal mail" outside the presence of the prisoner may have 

an impermissible "chilling" effect on the constitutional right to petition the government).

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 

and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of the complaint with attachments and a copy of this order 

on Warden Ron Davis and Mailroom Supervisor A. Lile at San Quentin State Prison.

Case 3:16-cv-01980-JSC Document 7 Filed 05/27/16 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 Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent 

form, the complaint with all attachments and a copy of this order to the California Attorney 

General’s Office. 

2. Defendants shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 

within the deadline provided on the form. They shall also file an answer in accordance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3. To expedite the resolution of this case:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is issued, 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, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 

events at issue. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 

judgment, they 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. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendants shall also serve, on a 

separate paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 

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

Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 

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).

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is 

filed. 

e. 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. 

4. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants or 

their counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 

Defendants or their counsel.

Case 3:16-cv-01980-JSC Document 7 Filed 05/27/16 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

5. 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) is required before the 

parties may conduct discovery.

6. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He also 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). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a 

showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline. 

7. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. There is no right to 

counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and Plaintiff 

has demonstrated that he is able to present his claims effectively. Plaintiff may not renew this 

request because if the circumstances change such that Plaintiff needs the assistance of counsel ---

such as if a trial proves necessary --- the Court will refer the case to the Federal Pro Bono Project 

for location of counsel to assist Plaintiff on a pro bono basis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01980-JSC Document 7 Filed 05/27/16 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

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 Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts 

shown in 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-01980-JSC Document 7 Filed 05/27/16 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER A. GEIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01980-JSC 

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 27, 2016, 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.

Christopher A. Geier ID: J-82500

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: May 27, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:16-cv-01980-JSC Document 7 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 6