Scalant v. Fratianni

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03156
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO ERICK SCALANT, Case No. 25-cv-03156-RFL

Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE;

v. ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION SALVATORE FRATIANNI, et al., OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; Defendants. INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

Alberto Scalant, a detainee at Santa Cruz County Jail, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court reviewed the original complaint and found that he stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Dr. Fratianni for violating his right to adequate medical care, but Defendants Cleveland and Freitas, who are supervisors, were dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 7 at 1.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend by July 7, 2025, to allege additional facts to demonstrate that Cleveland and Freitas participated in or directed the constitutional violations. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint by the deadline. When liberally construed, Plaintiff states a denial of medical care claim against Dr. Fratianni. Cleveland and Freitas are DISMISSED from this action. Dr. Fratianni shall file a response to the complaint, a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or before December 1, 2025. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1. Dr. Salvatore Fratianni shall be served at Santa Cruz County Main Jail. The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve Defendant without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. Cleveland and Freitas are DISMISSED. 2. On or before December 1, 2025, Defendant shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim(s) in the complaint found to be cognizable above. a. If Defendant elects to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), defendant shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). b. If Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than forty-five (45) days from the date Defendant’s motion is filed. 4. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 6. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendant, or on Defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendant or Defendant’s counsel. 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is required before the parties may conduct discovery. Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in their medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974); 15 California Code of Regulations § 3370; and the CDCR’s Department Operations Manual §§ 13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. Requests to review these files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to prison officials, not to the Court. Plaintiff may also use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this Order. Such requests must be made directly to jail officials, not to the Court. 8. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any 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). 9. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 10. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendant shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves any motion for summary judgment:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

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 genuine issue of material fact — that is, if there is no real dispute about any 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 your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents and 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, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 29, 2025

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge