Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03920/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03920-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Delaney-Ippolito
Defendant
D. Hamlin
Defendant
Clifton Jerome McDaniel
Plaintiff
R. Reynolds
Defendant
T. Richardson
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFTON JEROME McDANIEL, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

J DELANEY-IPPOLITO, et al,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 07-3920 VRW (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the California Medical Facility ("CMF") and

frequent litigant in this court, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint for damages

under 42 USC § 1983 alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his safety

while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). 

DISCUSSION

A. 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 USC § 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, however. 

Balistreri v Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F2d 696, 699 (9th Cir 1990).

Case 3:07-cv-03920-VRW Document 4 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 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 2

To state a claim under 42 USC § 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 US 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on November 20, 2004, correctional officer R

Reynolds threatened to shoot him and “instigated” another inmate to go into his

cell and threaten him, in retaliation for plaintiff having filed grievances against

Reynolds and his co-workers. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations state a

cognizable § 1983 claim for retaliation against Reynolds and will be served. See

Bruce v Ylst, 351 F3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir 2003) (prisoner may not be retaliated

against for filing grievances).

Plaintiff next alleges that on December 16, 2004, doctor D Hamlin,

classification committee member J Delaney-Ippolito and sergeant T Richardson

moved him from a special needs unit despite his safety concerns and plaintiff was

robbed and assaulted. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants moved him in

retaliation for plaintiff having filed grievances against their co-workers. 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations state cognizable §1983 claims for

deliberate indifference to safety and for retaliation against Hamlin, DelaneyIppolito and Richardson and will be served. See Farmer v Brennan, 511 US 825,

832 (1994) (8th Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable

measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners); Bruce, 351 F3d at 1288 (prisoner

may not be retaliated against for filing grievances).

Plaintiff finally alleges that sergeant Caplan failed to report "the whole

truth" following his administrative investigation of a July 20, 2004 incident in

which plaintiff was attacked by another inmate. Plaintiff's allegations against

Case 3:07-cv-03920-VRW Document 4 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 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 3

Caplan are dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief under § 1983 because it

is well-established that there is no constitutional right to an inmate administrative

appeal or grievance system, see Mann v Adams, 855 F2d 639, 640 (9th Cir

1988), and that a state’s inmate administrative appeal system does not implicate a

liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, see Antonelli v Sheahan, 81

F3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir 1996). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint in this matter, all

attachments thereto, and copies of this order on the following defendants at

SVSP: Correctional officer R Reynolds, doctor D Hamlin, classification

committee member J Delaney-Ippolito and sergeant T Richardson. Sergeant

Caplan is dismissed. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on plaintiff.

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as

follows:

a. No later than 90 days from the date of this order, defendants

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion

for summary judgment 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 or other dispositive motion, they shall so inform the court

prior to the date their motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be

served promptly on plaintiff.

/

Case 3:07-cv-03920-VRW Document 4 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 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 4

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed

with the court and served upon defendants no later than 30 days after defendants

serve plaintiff with the motion. 

c. 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(e), that contradicts 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 F3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir 1998) (en banc) (App A).

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

administrative remedies under 42 USC § 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 the defendants in

their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v Terhune, 315 F3d 1108, 1120 n14 (9th Cir

2003).

Case 3:07-cv-03920-VRW Document 4 Filed 11/29/07 Page 4 of 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 G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.07\McDaniel, C1.or1.wpd 5

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief within 15 days of the date

on which plaintiff serves them with the opposition. 

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. 

3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. No further court order is required before the parties may

conduct discovery.

4. 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 defendants' counsel.

5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must

keep the court and all parties 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03920-VRW Document 4 Filed 11/29/07 Page 5 of 5