Golson v. Narvaez

District Court, N.D. California·Decided December 1, 2022·No. 3:18-cv-01966·Unknown

Opinion

JAMAR BRANDON GOLSON, Case No. 18-cv-01966-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER OF SERVICE;

v. DEFENDANTS TO FILE A J. NARVAEZ, et al., DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH Defendants. MOTION;

Dkt. Nos. 49, 51, and 57 In his second amended complaint, plaintiff Jamar Brandon Golson has stated Eighth Amendment claims against employees of Salinas Valley State Prison. The Court directs defendants to file in response to the operative complaint a dispositive motion, or notice regarding such motion, on or before March 13, 2023, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants comply with the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order. 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. See 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 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). B. Legal Claims Golson’s motion to amend his complaint is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 49.) No further amended complaints will be entertained. In his second amended complaint, Golson puts forth two sets of Eighth Amendment claims. One set is based on allegations of excessive force; the other on allegations of inadequate medical care. i. Excessive Force Golson alleges that Salinas Valley prison guard J. Navarez used excessive force on him on April 23, 2017, an act in which he was joined by guards Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda. The excessive force claims against Navarez, Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda are cognizable under section 1983, when liberally construed. ii. Medical Care Golson alleges that R. Erguiza, a nurse; K. Kumar, a doctor; and Darrin Bright, a doctor, provided inadequate medical care or interfered with Golson receiving Erguiza, Kumar, and Bright are cognizable under § 1983. C. Pending Motions Golson’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to Golson filing a cross motion for summary judgment when defendants file their motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 51.) Golson moves for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 57.) The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact that the pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily qualify the issues involved as complex. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). There is no doubt that not having a lawyer puts a party at a disadvantage in our adversarial system of justice. Across the United States in 2020, unrepresented prisoners filed almost 8000 cases, roughly 16.65% of all new civil filings. United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, 2020 Annual Report, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/judicial- council/publications /AnnualReport2020.pdf. The high percentage of civil litigants who cannot afford counsel threatens our ability to dispense equal justice to rich and poor alike, as the judicial oath demands. That said, I am compelled to follow controlling precedent and determine if “exceptional circumstances” exist to appoint counsel in the cases before me. Golson has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist. His filings are clear, and the suit does not present complex legal issues. Accordingly, Golson’s motion for the if circumstances warrant such action at a later date. For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Court orders service of the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 49-1), and all attachments thereto, on defendants Navarez, Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda, all correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison; and R. Erguiza, a nurse; K. Kumar, a doctor; and Darrin Bright, a doctor, all employees of Salinas Valley State Prisoner, and orders these defendants to respond to the cognizable claims raised in the complaint. 2. Service on these defendants shall proceed under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via email the following documents: the operative complaint (Docket No. 49-1) and its attachments; this order; a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form; and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff. 3. No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 4. Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each defendant who has not waiv

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Golson v. Narvaez, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Golson v. Narvaez (Golson v. Narvaez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related