Scott v. Garcia

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 31, 2025
Docket4:25-cv-00435
StatusUnknown

This text of Scott v. Garcia (Scott v. Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scott v. Garcia, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES SCOTT, Case No. 25-cv-00435-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE 9 v.

10 R. GARCIA, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), has filed a 14 pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this order, the Court screens Plaintiff’s complaint 15 (Dkt. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis in a separate order. 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: (1) that a 7 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 8 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 9 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 The complaint alleges that on August 28, 2024, SVSP correctional officer R. Garcia put 12 Plaintiff in a choke hold, dragged Plaintiff to the ground, and started slamming Plaintiff’s head 13 into the ground, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe pain in his neck, back and head. The complaint 14 alleges that there was no need for the use of force, and that Plaintiff was not resisting at the time. 15 See generally Dkt. No. 1. Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable Eighth 16 Amendment excessive force claim against defendant R. Garcia. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 17 9 (1992) (Eighth Amendment violated when “prison officials maliciously and sadistically use 18 force to cause harm”). 19 CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders as follows. 21 1. The following defendant(s) shall be served: Salinas Valley State Prison correctional 22 officer R. Garcia. 23 2. Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of 24 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners 25 in the CDCR’s custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the 26 CDCR via email the following documents: the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 1), this order of 27 service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a 1 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall 2 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 3 defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by 4 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or 5 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 6 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court 7 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 8 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 9 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 10 USM-205 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies 11 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has 12 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 13 Service Waiver. 14 3. As detailed above, the complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim 15 against SVSP correctional officer R. Garcia. 16 4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 17 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, Defendant must file 18 and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendant is of the 19 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, Defendant must so inform the 20 Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for summary judgment also must be 21 accompanied by a Rand notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what 22 is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 23 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be 24 served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 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(s) 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 27 Cir. 2014) (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which 1 b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 2 must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendant no later than 28 days from the date the 3 motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 4 provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 5 Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The 6 motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on 7 the motion. 8 5.

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

Related

Tucker v. Oxley
9 U.S. 34 (Supreme Court, 1809)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (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)
Wyatt v. Terhune
315 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Scott v. Garcia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-garcia-cand-2025.