Stallworth v. Thomas

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJune 28, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-07667
StatusUnknown

This text of Stallworth v. Thomas (Stallworth v. Thomas) 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
Stallworth v. Thomas, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KENNY STALLWORTH, Case No. 22-cv-07667-KAW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE 9 v.

10 M. THOMAS, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff Kenny Stallworth, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), filed this pro 14 se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His first amended complaint is now before the 15 Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Dkt No. 7. 16 DISCUSSION 17 I. Standard of Review 18 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 21 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary 22 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings 23 must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right 25 secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 26 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 27 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 1 deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Caifornia Dep’t of Corrections & 2 Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 3 1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does 4 an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is 5 legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. 6 II. Legal Claims 7 Plaintiff names as defendants the following SVSP prison officials: Captain M. Thomas, 8 Lieutenant R. Poodry, Officer T. Flores, and Officer C. Avalos. Plaintiff alleges that Thomas and 9 Poodry moved inmates infected with Covid-19 into his building unit, without instituting any safety 10 measures to control the spread of the virus. Plaintiff states that infected inmates were permitted to 11 interact with him and were housed near him. Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated claims for 12 relief under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Thomas and Poodry. 13 Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Flores and Avalos denied him canteen privileges, 14 which prevented him from purchasing necessary personal and physical hygiene items, as well as 15 items to maintain a balanced diet. Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated claims for relief under 16 the Fourteenth Amendment. 17 CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 19 1. The following defendant at the Salinas Valley State Prison shall be served: Captain 20 M. Thomas, Lieutenant R. Poodry, Officer T. Flores, and Officer C. Avalos. Service on the 21 defendants shall proceed under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s 22 (CDCR) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance 23 with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via email the following documents: the 24 operative complaint and any attachments thereto, (Docket No. 7), this order of service, the notice 25 of assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate 26 judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver 27 form and a summons. The clerk also shall serve by mail a copy of this order on Plaintiff. 1 the Court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the Court which defendant(s) 2 listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United 3 States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or could not be 4 reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver and of the 5 notice of assignment of prisoner case to a magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge 6 jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form to the California Attorney General’s Office, 7 which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) 8 who are waiving service and, within 28 days thereafter, shall file a magistrate judge jurisdiction 9 consent or declination to consent form as to the defendant(s) who waived service. 10 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the clerk shall prepare for each 11 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 12 USM-205 Form. The clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies 13 of this order, the summons, the operative complaint and notice of assignment of prisoner case to a 14 magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent 15 form for service upon each defendant who has not waived service. The clerk also shall provide to 16 the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver. 17 2. To expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 18 No later than sixty (60) days from the date of service, defendant(s) shall file a motion for 19 summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by adequate 20 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and 21 shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events at issue. If 22 defendant(s) are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion, they shall so 23 inform the Court prior to the date that such motion is due. All papers filed with the Court shall be 24 promptly served on Plaintiff. 25 At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendant(s) shall also serve, on a separate 26 paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-54 (9th 27 Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003); see Woods 1 at the time motions for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for non-exhaustion are filed, not 2 earlier); Rand, 154 F.3d at 960 (establishing the separate paper requirement). 3 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the Court 4 and served upon defendant no later than thirty days from the date the defendant’s motion is served 5 upon him.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Stallworth v. Thomas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stallworth-v-thomas-cand-2023.