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

HENRY DESEAN ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JESSICA HAMILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00327-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”), filed a 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Dkt. 7. The operative complaint in this action is the second amended complaint

(“SAC”), in which Plaintiff alleges violations of the conditions of his confinement at MDF.

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred at 

MDF, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

On August 1, 2017, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend with various instructions to correct 

certain deficiencies, including that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that complies with the 

joinder requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Dkt. 13. The Court provided 

Plaintiff with the rules regarding joinder of Defendants as well as other pleading requirements. 

See id. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint. Dkt. 14.

On January 19, 2018, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismissed it

with leave to amend with instructions to correct deficiencies, including that Plaintiff must 

establish legal liability of each person for the claimed violation of his rights. Dkt. 16. 

As mentioned, Plaintiff has since filed his SAC. Dkt. 17. In his SAC, Plaintiff has named 

the following Defendants: MDF Medical Director Jessica Hamilton; MDF Nurse Provider Paul 

Manaut; and MDF Pill Call Nursing Staff Nurses Stephanie, Marytest, Mary, Sahara, Samaria, 

Vince, and Jennifer. Id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 3.
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. 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 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). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements, 

namely that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and 

(2) the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claim

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, 

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v. 

Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves 

an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of 

the defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. A “serious” medical 

need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or 

the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). A prison 

official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of 

serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Plaintiff claims that in the month of June 2016, he was provided with the “wrong 

medication” that caused adverse effects. Dkt. 17 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that he consequently 
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

contracted “H. pylori1and a prostate infection” which the MDF medical staff refused to treat. Id. 

Plaintiff further alleges that his blood and urine tests results were abnormal, but Defendants 

Hamilton and Manaut stated that the tests were normal and “lied about [the] test results on 

numerous of other occasions,” delaying Plaintiff’s proper medical attention. Id. at 4-5. 

Plaintiff also claims he was denied the following requests: (1) to be treated in a timely 

manner for his H. pylori and prostate infections by Defendants Hamilton and Manaut; (2) to have 

blood and urine work done for cancer, syphilis, type 2 diabetes, and prostate infection by 

Defendant Hamilton; and (3) to have proper medication administered to him by the “pill call 

nursing staff” at MDF, including Defendants Stephanie, Marytest, Mary, Sahara, Samaria, Vince, 

and Jennifer, after they were told by Plaintiff that the medication caused him illness. See id. at 4-

6. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was successfully treated for the H. pylori infection on May 11, 

2017 and for the prostate infection in November 2017.

2

 Id. Plaintiff alleges that as of January 26, 

2018, he still experiences inflammation in the prostate region, as well as similar symptoms and 

pains. Id. 

The aforementioned allegations support an inference that Plaintiff has serious medical 

needs. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations that named Defendants listed above failed to 

provide adequate medical treatment state cognizable Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs against these named Defendants.

3

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

 

1 Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a type of bacteria that lives in the digestive tract and can 

cause ulcers.

2

Plaintiff indicates that he was treated for the prostate infection in “November 2018.” 

Dkt. 17 at 4 (emphasis added). However, Plaintiff seems to have made a typographical error, and 

the Court assumes he meant November 2017. 

3

 Plaintiff contends he has filed administrative appeals on this issue which have never 

been answered. Dkt. 17 at 1-2. It thus appears he has not exhausted his administrative remedies 

as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). If the allegations that his appeals have not been answered are 

true, however, it may be that administrative remedies are not “available” within the meaning of the 

statute. This is an issue better resolved at a later stage of the case.
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

1. Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to

his serious medical needs against the named Defendants.

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 SAC and all 

attachments thereto (Dkt. 17), and a copy of this Order to the following Defendants: MDF

Medical Director Jessica Hamilton; MDF Nurse Provider Paul Manaut; and MDF Pill Call 

Nursing Staff Nurses Stephanie, Marytest, Mary, Sahara, Samaria, Vince, and Jennifer. The 

Clerk shall also mail a copy of the SAC and a copy of this Order to the Contra Costa County 

Counsel’s Office. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

3. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and SAC. 

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, fail to do so, Defendants will be required to 

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

4. Defendants shall answer the SAC in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

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

a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date their answer is due, Defendants 

shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion must be 
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

supported by adequate factual documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from 

the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand4notice 

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, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out 

in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss 

for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice. 

However, the Court notes that under the new law of the circuit, in the rare event that a failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the SAC, Defendants may move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), 

as opposed to the previous practice of moving under an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Albino 

v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 

(9th Cir. 2003), which held that failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), should be raised by a defendant as an 

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Otherwise, if a failure to exhaust is not clear on the face of the 

SAC, Defendants must produce evidence proving failure to exhaust in a motion for summary 

judgment under Rule 56. Id. If undisputed evidence viewed in the light most favorable to 

Plaintiff shows a failure to exhaust, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56. 

Id. But if material facts are disputed, summary judgment should be denied and the district judge, 

rather than a jury, should determine the facts in a preliminary proceeding. Id. at 1168.

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 twenty-eight (28) days after the date on which 

Defendants’ motion is filed. 

c. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of 

 

4

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
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

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 supported properly by declarations (or other sworn 

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your SAC 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, 154 

F.3d at 962-63.

Plaintiff also is advised that—in the rare event that Defendants argue that the failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the SAC—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. To avoid dismissal, you have the right to present any evidence to show that you did 

exhaust your available administrative remedies before coming to federal court. Such evidence 

may include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed under penalty of perjury by you or 

others who have personal knowledge of relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents—

documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are 

authentic, or other sworn papers such as answers to interrogatories or depositions; (3) statements 

in your SAC insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you have 

personal knowledge of the matters state therein. As mentioned above, in considering a motion to 

dismiss for failure to exhaust under Rule 12(b)(6) or failure to exhaust in a summary judgment 

motion under Rule 56, the district judge may hold a preliminary proceeding and decide disputed 

issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168.

(The notices above do not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve similar notices again 
7

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

concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies and 

motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935.)

d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the 

date Plaintiff’s 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 

them.

7. 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. 

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes 

while an action is pending must promptly file a notice of change of address specifying the new 

address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail 

directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and 

(2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro 

se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b). 

8. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

July 5, 2018