Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03166/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03166-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Murphy
Defendant
Maurice Davon Robins
Plaintiff
Salinas Valley State Prison
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 

MAURICE DAVON ROBINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD MURPHY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-03166-KAW (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Maurice Davon Robins, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State 

Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of 

his constitutional rights by Officer Donald Murphy, who now works at High Desert State Prison.1

 

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge over 

this action. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. 

The Court now reviews Plaintiff’s complaint.

DISCUSSION 

I. Preliminary Review of Complaint 

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 

 

1

 The docket sheet incorrectly states that Plaintiff also sues Salinas Valley State Prison. The Clerk 

of the Court shall correct this error by terminating Salinas Valley as a defendant. 

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 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 

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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1988). 

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

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). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the 

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. Corrections & Rehabilitation, 756 

F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City 

of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a constitutional 

right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's 

affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the 

deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 

II. Plaintiff’s Claim

 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on September 4, 2014, without cause, Defendant 

sprayed Plaintiff with pepper spray, pushed Plaintiff from behind causing him to fall down, kicked 

and punched him while he was on the ground and pulled his leg back. While Plaintiff was on the 

floor, Defendant got on Plaintiff’s back, pulled his head back, placed his arm around Plaintiff’s 

neck and choked him. Plaintiff could not breathe and could not see because of the pepper spray. 

As Defendant was choking him, Defendant ordered Plaintiff to put his hands behind his back, but 

Plaintiff could not follow this order because Defendant was leaning on his back and choking him. 

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 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 

After five to eight seconds, Defendant stopped choking Plaintiff, allowed him to put his hands 

behind his back, cuffed him and allowed him to stand up. 

 Liberally construed, these allegations appear to state a cognizable excessive force claim 

under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

 1. Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

Defendant. 

 2. The Clerk of the Court 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 

(docket no. 1) and all attachments thereto, a copy of this Order and a copy of the form “Consent or 

Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” to High Desert State Prison Defendant Officer 

Donald Murphy. This form can also be found at www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. 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, and a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 

 3. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires him 

to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant to 

Rule 4, if Defendant, 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, he will be required to bear the cost of 

such service unless good cause be shown for his failure to sign and return the waiver forms. If 

service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on the date that the 

waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be required to serve 

and file an answer before sixty 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.) 

 Defendant is advised 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 Defendant has been personally 

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 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 

served, the answer shall be due sixty days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent 

or twenty days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever is later. 

 4. Defendant shall file his Consent or Declination to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on or 

before the date his answer is due. 

 5. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: 

 a. No later than thirty days from the date his answer is due, Defendant shall file a 

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendant files a motion for 

summary judgment, it shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in 

all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. If 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. All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on 

Plaintiff. 

 At the time of filing the motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, 

Defendant shall comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th 

Cir. 2012), and provide Plaintiff with notice of what is required of him to oppose a summary 

judgment motion. 

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

motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than twenty-eight days after 

the date on which Defendant’s 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 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. 

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 

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 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 

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. 

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

 Before filing his opposition, Plaintiff is advised to read the notice that will be provided to 

him by Defendant when the motion is filed, and 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 Defendant’s summary judgment 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. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen 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 Defendant to depose 

Plaintiff and any other necessary witnesses confined in prison. 

 7. All communications by 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. 

 8. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He 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 fourteen days prior to the deadline 

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 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 

sought to be extended. 

 10. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate Salinas Valley State prison as a defendant on the 

docket sheet. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 1, 2015 

______________________________________ 

KANDIS A. WESTMORE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-03166-JST Document 3 Filed 09/01/15 Page 6 of 6