1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARTURO ARRANGA BALLESTEROS, Case No. 20-cv-06207-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9
10 STEPHEN STEK, et al., Defendants. 11
12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983 against the City of Santa Clara and a number of its police officers.1 Plaintiff’s application to 15 proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the 16 complaint is ordered served upon Defendants. 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 21 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 23 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 24 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 26 27 1 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 2 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 3 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 4 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 5 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 6 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 8 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 9 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 10 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 11 42, 48 (1988). 12 LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Plaintiff’s allegations that City of Santa Clara Police Officers Stephen Stek, Joshua 14 Higgins, Jeff Burns, Patrick Gacayan, Anthony Pianto, Randy Vandieman, Kenneth Nagata, Brian 15 Daniels, and Nathalie Zavala used excessive force against him during his arrest in violation of his 16 Fourth Amendment rights state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983. Additionally, 17 when liberally construed, the complaint states cognizable claims under the Fourth Amendment 18 against Sergeant C. Morgan on a theory of supervisorial liability, and against the City of Santa 19 Clara on a theory of municipal liability. 20 CONCLUSION 21 1. The Clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 22 and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, Magistrate 23 Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of the complaint with attachments, and a copy of this 24 order on Sergeant C. Morgan and Officers Stephen Stek, Joshua Higgins, Jeff Burns, Patrick 25 Gacayan, Anthony Pianto, Randy Vandieman, Kenneth Nagata, Brian Daniels, and Nathalie 26 Zavala, in the City of Santa Clara Police Department, and on the City of Santa Clara. 27 The Clerk shall also send a courtesy copy of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent 1 form, the complaint with all attachments and a copy of this order to the City of Santa Clara City 2 Attorney’s Office. 3 2. Defendants shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 4 within the deadline provided on the form. They shall also file an answer in accordance with the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 3. To expedite the resolution of this case: 7 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is issued, Defendants shall file a 8 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 9 Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 10 events at issue. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 11 judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 12 All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff. 13 b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendants shall also serve, on a 14 separate paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th 15 Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the 17 Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 18 Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him 19 pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 20 d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is 21 filed. 22 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 23 hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 24 5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants or 25 their counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 26 Defendants or their counsel. 27 6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the 2 || parties may conduct discovery. 3 7. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 4 || wnformed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 5 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 6 || do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 41(b). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a 8 showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 5, 2021 11 2 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORL 13 United States Magistrate Judge
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARTURO ARRANGA BALLESTEROS, Case No. 20-cv-06207-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9
10 STEPHEN STEK, et al., Defendants. 11
12 INTRODUCTION 13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983 against the City of Santa Clara and a number of its police officers.1 Plaintiff’s application to 15 proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the 16 complaint is ordered served upon Defendants. 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 21 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 22 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 23 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 24 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 26 27 1 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 2 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 3 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 4 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 5 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 6 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to 8 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 9 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 10 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 11 42, 48 (1988). 12 LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Plaintiff’s allegations that City of Santa Clara Police Officers Stephen Stek, Joshua 14 Higgins, Jeff Burns, Patrick Gacayan, Anthony Pianto, Randy Vandieman, Kenneth Nagata, Brian 15 Daniels, and Nathalie Zavala used excessive force against him during his arrest in violation of his 16 Fourth Amendment rights state a cognizable claim for relief under Section 1983. Additionally, 17 when liberally construed, the complaint states cognizable claims under the Fourth Amendment 18 against Sergeant C. Morgan on a theory of supervisorial liability, and against the City of Santa 19 Clara on a theory of municipal liability. 20 CONCLUSION 21 1. The Clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 22 and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, Magistrate 23 Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of the complaint with attachments, and a copy of this 24 order on Sergeant C. Morgan and Officers Stephen Stek, Joshua Higgins, Jeff Burns, Patrick 25 Gacayan, Anthony Pianto, Randy Vandieman, Kenneth Nagata, Brian Daniels, and Nathalie 26 Zavala, in the City of Santa Clara Police Department, and on the City of Santa Clara. 27 The Clerk shall also send a courtesy copy of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent 1 form, the complaint with all attachments and a copy of this order to the City of Santa Clara City 2 Attorney’s Office. 3 2. Defendants shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 4 within the deadline provided on the form. They shall also file an answer in accordance with the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 3. To expedite the resolution of this case: 7 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is issued, Defendants shall file a 8 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 9 Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the 10 events at issue. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 11 judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 12 All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff. 13 b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, Defendants shall also serve, on a 14 separate paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th 15 Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012). 16 c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the 17 Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 18 Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him 19 pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 20 d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is 21 filed. 22 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 23 hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 24 5. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants or 25 their counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 26 Defendants or their counsel. 27 6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the 2 || parties may conduct discovery. 3 7. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 4 || wnformed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 5 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 6 || do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 7 Civil Procedure 41(b). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a 8 showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 5, 2021 11 2 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORL 13 United States Magistrate Judge
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) 2 If Defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. 3 A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if 4 granted, end your case. 5 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 6 Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact-- 7 that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party 8 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 9 supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your 10 complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to 11 interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts 12 shown in Defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of 13 material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, 14 if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be 15 dismissed and there will be no trial. 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27