1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAYVION T. GARR' DENA, Case No. 25-cv-09030-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9
10 TAYMAN, Defendant. 11
12 13 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison, has 14 filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) 15 correctional counselor Tayman. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for review 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. ECF No. 5. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 25 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 8 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 9 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 Plaintiff sues PBSP correctional counselor I (“CCI”) Tayman. The complaint makes the 12 following allegations. On or about August 2023, Plaintiff was hired as a peer mentor by Mr. 13 Burdett. Defendant Tayman refused to place Plaintiff on the peer mentor job waiting list, falsely 14 claiming that Plaintiff lacked the following pre-requisites – a high school diploma and being six 15 months disciplinary-free. Plaintiff’s central file, which is readily available to defendant Tayman, 16 indicates that Plaintiff has a high school diploma and that his last rules violations were in July 17 2022 and October 2022. Defendant Tayman’s unjustified refusal was in retaliation for the 18 grievance that Plaintiff filed against defendant Tayman in October 2022 for refusing to process 19 Plaintiff’s legal name change. Plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages, and $250,000 in punitive 20 damages. See generally ECF No. 1. 21 Liberally construed, the complaint’s allegation that defendant Tayman retaliated against 22 Plaintiff for his grievance activity by refusing to place Plaintiff on the peer mentor job waiting list 23 based on false reasons states a cognizable First Amendment claim. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 24 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 25 retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 26 against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action 27 (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows. 3 1. The following defendant(s) shall be served: Pelican Bay State Prison correctional 4 counselor I Tayman. 5 2. Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of 6 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners 7 in the CDCR’s custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the 8 CDCR via email at CDCR_OLA_Service_of_Process@cdcr.ca.gov the following documents: the 9 operative complaint (ECF No. 1), this order of service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form 10 and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the Plaintiff. 11 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall 12 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 13 defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by 14 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or 15 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 16 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court 17 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 18 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 19 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 20 USM-205 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies 21 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has 22 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 23 Service Waiver. 24 3. As detailed above, the complaint states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation 25 claim against Pelican Bay State Prison correctional counselor I Tayman. 26 4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 27 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, Defendant must file 1 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, Defendant must so inform the 2 Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for summary judgment also must be 3 accompanied by a Rand notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what 4 is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 5 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be 6 served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 7 b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 8 must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the date the 9 motion is filed.
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 JAYVION T. GARR' DENA, Case No. 25-cv-09030-JST
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9
10 TAYMAN, Defendant. 11
12 13 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison, has 14 filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) 15 correctional counselor Tayman. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for review 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. ECF No. 5. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 25 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 8 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 9 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 Plaintiff sues PBSP correctional counselor I (“CCI”) Tayman. The complaint makes the 12 following allegations. On or about August 2023, Plaintiff was hired as a peer mentor by Mr. 13 Burdett. Defendant Tayman refused to place Plaintiff on the peer mentor job waiting list, falsely 14 claiming that Plaintiff lacked the following pre-requisites – a high school diploma and being six 15 months disciplinary-free. Plaintiff’s central file, which is readily available to defendant Tayman, 16 indicates that Plaintiff has a high school diploma and that his last rules violations were in July 17 2022 and October 2022. Defendant Tayman’s unjustified refusal was in retaliation for the 18 grievance that Plaintiff filed against defendant Tayman in October 2022 for refusing to process 19 Plaintiff’s legal name change. Plaintiff seeks $250,000 in damages, and $250,000 in punitive 20 damages. See generally ECF No. 1. 21 Liberally construed, the complaint’s allegation that defendant Tayman retaliated against 22 Plaintiff for his grievance activity by refusing to place Plaintiff on the peer mentor job waiting list 23 based on false reasons states a cognizable First Amendment claim. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 24 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 25 retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 26 against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action 27 (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows. 3 1. The following defendant(s) shall be served: Pelican Bay State Prison correctional 4 counselor I Tayman. 5 2. Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of 6 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners 7 in the CDCR’s custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the 8 CDCR via email at CDCR_OLA_Service_of_Process@cdcr.ca.gov the following documents: the 9 operative complaint (ECF No. 1), this order of service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form 10 and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the Plaintiff. 11 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall 12 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 13 defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by 14 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or 15 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 16 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court 17 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 18 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 19 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 20 USM-205 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies 21 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has 22 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 23 Service Waiver. 24 3. As detailed above, the complaint states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation 25 claim against Pelican Bay State Prison correctional counselor I Tayman. 26 4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 27 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, Defendant must file 1 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, Defendant must so inform the 2 Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for summary judgment also must be 3 accompanied by a Rand notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what 4 is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 5 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be 6 served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 7 b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 8 must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the date the 9 motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 10 provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 11 Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The 12 motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on 13 the motion. 14 5. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the 15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must 16 do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be 17 granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about 18 any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is 19 entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing 20 makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 21 testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out 22 specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, 23 as provided in Rule 56(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and 24 documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit 25 1 If Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as 26 required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Defendant must raise such argument in a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) 27 (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that 1 your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. 2 || If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. 3 Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A). (The Rand notice above does 4 || not excuse Defendant’s obligation to serve said notice again concurrently with a motion for 5 summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939). 6 6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant’s 7 counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant’s counsel. The Court may disregard 8 any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until Defendant’s 9 counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to Defendant 10 || but once Defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to counsel rather than 11 directly to Defendant. 12 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 13 No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 14 || before the parties may conduct discovery. 3 15 8. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the a 16 || Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 3 17 || fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 18 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 19 || pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 20 9. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 21 to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. Plaintiff is cautioned that 22 || he must include the case name and case number for this case on any document he submits to the 23 Court for consideration in this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 8, 2025 . 26 JON S. TIGA United States District Judge 28