Hayes v. Martinez

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 17, 2019·No. 3:19-cv-03372·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRY C. HAYES, Case No. 19-cv-03372-WHO (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE;

13 v. ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A 14 MAURICIO MARTINEZ, et al., DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 15 Defendants. MOTION;

16 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 17 Dkt. No. 8

18 INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiff Henry Hayes has stated Eighth Amendment claims against various persons 20 at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Court directs defendants to file in response to the 21 complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or before January 22 27, 2020. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 4 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 7 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 8 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 9 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 10 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 11 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 12 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 13 (9th Cir. 1994). 14 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 15 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 16 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 17 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 18 B. Legal Claims 19 Hayes alleges that in 2019 staff at Pelican Bay State Prison forced him to wear 20 prison-issued underwear, which contains synthetic materials to which he is allergic, even 21 though he prefers to wear cotton underwear he has purchased. When liberally construed, 22 Hayes has stated Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Mauricio Martinez; A. Harris, a 23 prison guard; D. Nelson, a correctional sergeant; Fillipia, a correctional sergeant; Tiffany 24 Greiger, a nurse; Dr. Jacobsen; and S. Manion, a correctional lieutenant. 25 All other claims are DISMISSED. Hayes’s claims against Rhoda Nasr, a nurse, are 26 DISMISSED. Nasr merely filed a request to have Hayes medically evaluated. This does 27 not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. His claims against Jim Robertson, the 1 Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), which means that a person is not 2 automatically held responsible simply because he or she is a supervisor of an employee 3 who commits a wrong. It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a supervisory 4 relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor “participated 5 in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” 6 Id. (emphasis added). There is nothing in the complaint that indicates personal knowledge 7 or involvement. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 10 1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal 11 shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter (Dkt. 12 No. 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon the following persons at 13 Pelican Bay State Prison: Dr. Mauricio Martinez; A. Harris, a prison guard; D. Nelson, a 14 correctional sergeant; Fillipia, a correctional sergeant; Tiffany Greiger, a nurse; Dr. 15 Jacobsen; and S. Manion, a correctional lieutenant. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy 16 copies of the complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 17 2. On or before January 27, 2020, defendants shall file a motion for summary 18 judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to 19 be cognizable above. 20 a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff 21 failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by 23 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 24 b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 25 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 26 Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 27 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 1 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 2 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 3 and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’ 4 motion is filed. 5 4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 6 plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 7 5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 8 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 9 6. All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on 10 defendants, or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 11 copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel. 12 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 14 Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 15 a. If the claims found cognizable in this order involve excessive force or 16 prison discipline, defendant(s) have thirty days from the date of service of the summons 17 and complaint to produce to plaintiff all documents related to any incident reports, 18 investigations, or Rules Violation Reports that were generated as a result of the incident(s) 19 described in the complaint, and all video recordings of such incident(s). If no such reports 20 or video recordings were generated, or if no investigation occurred, defendant(s) shall 21 inform plaintiff of this in writing; 22 b.

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

Hayes v. Martinez, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

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

Related

West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Earnest Woods, II v. Tom Carey
684 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Juan Albino v. Lee Baca
747 F.3d 1162 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)