1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MONROE JONES, Case No. 22-cv-07365-WHO (PR)
Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF SERVICE;
v. 9 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 10 RAHIMI, OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; Defendant. 11 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Monroe Jones alleges that Deputy Rahimi, a correctional deputy with the 16 San Mateo Sheriff’s Department, used excessive force on, and retaliated against, him. His 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before the Court for 18 review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 19 Jones has stated cognizable claims against Rahimi. The Court directs that Rahimi 20 to file in response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, 21 on or before July 10, 2023. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Standard of Review 24 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 1 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 2 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 4 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 5 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 6 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 7 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 9 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 10 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 11 (9th Cir. 1994). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 13 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 14 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 15 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 B. Legal Claims 17 Jones alleges that on October 26, 2022, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputy Rahimi 18 used excessive force on him and had him placed in administrative segregation in retaliation 19 for filing grievances. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4.) When liberally construed, Jones has 20 stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and a First Amendment retaliation 21 claim against Rahimi. 22 All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. His claims that he was denied 23 medical care do not attach liability to any person. (Id. at 5.) See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 24 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (the inquiry into the causation of the constitutional deprivation 25 must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual 26 defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.) 27 If he can find the names of the persons responsible, he may file a motion for leave to file 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal 4 shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter (Dkt. No. 5 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Deputy Rahimi, a deputy sheriff 6 employed by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy 7 copies of the complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 8 2. On or before July 10, 2023, defendant shall file a motion for summary 9 judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to 10 be cognizable above. 11 a. If defendant elects to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff 12 failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by 14 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 15 b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 16 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 17 Civil Procedure. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 18 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 19 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 20 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 21 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 22 and served on defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendant’s 23 motion is filed. 24 4. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 25 plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 26 5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 27 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 1 defendant, or defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 2 copy of the document to defendant or defendant’s counsel. 3 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 5 Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 6 Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in 7 their medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 8 1974); 15 California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations 9 Manual §§ 13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. 10 Requests to review these files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to 11 prison officials, not to the court. 12 Plaintiff may also use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the 13 opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail 14 officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this order. Such requests must 15 be made directly to jail officials, not to the court. 16 8. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case.
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 MONROE JONES, Case No. 22-cv-07365-WHO (PR)
Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF SERVICE;
v. 9 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION 10 RAHIMI, OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; Defendant. 11 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Monroe Jones alleges that Deputy Rahimi, a correctional deputy with the 16 San Mateo Sheriff’s Department, used excessive force on, and retaliated against, him. His 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now before the Court for 18 review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 19 Jones has stated cognizable claims against Rahimi. The Court directs that Rahimi 20 to file in response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, 21 on or before July 10, 2023. All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Standard of Review 24 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 1 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 2 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 4 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 5 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 6 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 7 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 8 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 9 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 10 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 11 (9th Cir. 1994). 12 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 13 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 14 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 15 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 B. Legal Claims 17 Jones alleges that on October 26, 2022, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputy Rahimi 18 used excessive force on him and had him placed in administrative segregation in retaliation 19 for filing grievances. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4.) When liberally construed, Jones has 20 stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and a First Amendment retaliation 21 claim against Rahimi. 22 All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED. His claims that he was denied 23 medical care do not attach liability to any person. (Id. at 5.) See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 24 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (the inquiry into the causation of the constitutional deprivation 25 must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual 26 defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.) 27 If he can find the names of the persons responsible, he may file a motion for leave to file 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal 4 shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter (Dkt. No. 5 1), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon Deputy Rahimi, a deputy sheriff 6 employed by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy 7 copies of the complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office. 8 2. On or before July 10, 2023, defendant shall file a motion for summary 9 judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to 10 be cognizable above. 11 a. If defendant elects to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff 12 failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by 14 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 15 b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 16 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 17 Civil Procedure. Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 18 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the 19 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 20 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 21 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 22 and served on defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendant’s 23 motion is filed. 24 4. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after 25 plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 26 5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 27 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 1 defendant, or defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 2 copy of the document to defendant or defendant’s counsel. 3 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 5 Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 6 Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in 7 their medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 8 1974); 15 California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations 9 Manual §§ 13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. 10 Requests to review these files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to 11 prison officials, not to the court. 12 Plaintiff may also use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the 13 opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail 14 officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this order. Such requests must 15 be made directly to jail officials, not to the court. 16 8. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 17 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a 18 timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 19 prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 20 9. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 21 extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 22 10. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be 23 given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions 24 at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or 25 otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 26 2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves 27 any motion for summary judgment: 1 The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under 2 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. 3 4 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no 5 genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any 6 fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end 7 your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 8 testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, 9 you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that 10 contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents and i show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, (212 may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 13 = Rand vy. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: April 5, 2023 . 16 LIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28