JABREE MCCARTER, Case No. 26-cv-00940-LJC
Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE; STAYING v. ACTION; AND REFERRING FOR SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS T. WOOD, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding an incident that took place at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is granted in a separate order. Service of the complaint on defendants is ordered, and the case is stayed and referred for preliminary settlement proceedings. I. Standard of Review A federal court must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, to dismiss any claims that: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 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 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of Section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or fails to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. II. Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff names as defendants sergeants T. Wood and Corpstein, and correctional counselors Buckhorn and Juneoo, and alleges that he informed each of the four defendants that he was threatened by other prisoners, but they each failed to protect him and he was battered by other prisoners on the yard. He seeks damages. Liberally construed, he has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants for deliberate indifference to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (“prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners”). IV. Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program The Northern District of California has established a Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Certain prisoner civil rights cases may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for settlement proceedings. The proceedings will consist of one or more conferences as determined by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The Court finds that this action should be referred to Magistrate Judge Illman for settlement proceedings. Accordingly, the Court hereby refers this case to Magistrate Judge Illman for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Such proceedings shall take place within 120 days of the date this Order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge Illman’s calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, time and date for one or more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of all Based on the foregoing, the court orders as follows: 1. The court orders that the following defendants at PBSP be served electronically: a. Sergeant T. Wood b. Sergeant Corpstein c. Correctional Counselor Buckhorn d. Correctional Counselor Juneoo Service on the listed defendants will be affected via the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) 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, this order of service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form, a summons, and the notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form. The clerk is also requested to serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff. No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR will provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court whether the defendants listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) or whether the defendants decline to waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also will provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, will file with the court a waiver of service of process for the defendants if they are waiving service. Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the clerk is requested to prepare for the defendants, if they have not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, a USM-285 Form. The clerk will provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms and copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has not waived service. The clerk will also provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver. requires defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 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)(A)(ii), defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the CDCR provides a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) If defendants have not waived service and have instead been served by the USMS, then defendants shall serve and file an answer within twenty-one (21) days after being served with the summons and complaint. 3. This action is referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The Clerk is directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this Order and to notify Magistrate Judge Illman that a copy of the court file can be retrieved from the Court’s electronic filing database. 4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 5. 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. 6.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JABREE MCCARTER, Case No. 26-cv-00940-LJC
Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE; STAYING v. ACTION; AND REFERRING FOR SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS T. WOOD, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding an incident that took place at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is granted in a separate order. Service of the complaint on defendants is ordered, and the case is stayed and referred for preliminary settlement proceedings. I. Standard of Review A federal court must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, to dismiss any claims that: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 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 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of Section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or fails to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. II. Plaintiff’s Allegations Plaintiff names as defendants sergeants T. Wood and Corpstein, and correctional counselors Buckhorn and Juneoo, and alleges that he informed each of the four defendants that he was threatened by other prisoners, but they each failed to protect him and he was battered by other prisoners on the yard. He seeks damages. Liberally construed, he has stated an Eighth Amendment claim against all defendants for deliberate indifference to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (“prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners”). IV. Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program The Northern District of California has established a Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Certain prisoner civil rights cases may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for settlement proceedings. The proceedings will consist of one or more conferences as determined by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. The Court finds that this action should be referred to Magistrate Judge Illman for settlement proceedings. Accordingly, the Court hereby refers this case to Magistrate Judge Illman for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Such proceedings shall take place within 120 days of the date this Order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge Illman’s calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, time and date for one or more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of all Based on the foregoing, the court orders as follows: 1. The court orders that the following defendants at PBSP be served electronically: a. Sergeant T. Wood b. Sergeant Corpstein c. Correctional Counselor Buckhorn d. Correctional Counselor Juneoo Service on the listed defendants will be affected via the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) 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, this order of service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form, a summons, and the notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form. The clerk is also requested to serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff. No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR will provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court whether the defendants listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) or whether the defendants decline to waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also will provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, will file with the court a waiver of service of process for the defendants if they are waiving service. Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the clerk is requested to prepare for the defendants, if they have not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, a USM-285 Form. The clerk will provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 forms and copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has not waived service. The clerk will also provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver. requires defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 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)(A)(ii), defendants will not be required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the CDCR provides a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of summons is necessary.) If defendants have not waived service and have instead been served by the USMS, then defendants shall serve and file an answer within twenty-one (21) days after being served with the summons and complaint. 3. This action is referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The Clerk is directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this Order and to notify Magistrate Judge Illman that a copy of the court file can be retrieved from the Court’s electronic filing database. 4. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 5. 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. 6. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). // // // // ] 7. In view of the referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, after the 2 complaint has been served on the named defendants against whom plaintiff has alleged cognizable 3 claims, all other further proceedings in this case are hereby stayed. 5 Dated: May 5, 2026 6 7 he. | Mari LISK J SCISNER®S 8 Unile¢States Magistrate Judge 9 10 1] a 12
15 16
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28