The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 LAMARR F BROWN, Case No. 22-cv-00881-SVK
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF SERVICE
v.
9
10 CRAIG KOENIG, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12 INTRODUCTION
13 Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
14 1983 against the Warden and Chief Deputy Warden of the California Training Facility (“CTF”),
15 where Plaintiff is housed.1 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a
16 separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is ordered served upon
17 Defendants.
18 STANDARD OF REVIEW
19 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
21 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
22 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
23 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
24 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901
25 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
26
27
1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
2 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon
3 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to
4 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to
5 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
6 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must
7 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
8 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
9
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
10
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
11
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
12
42, 48 (1988).
13
LEGAL CLAIMS
14
Plaintiff alleges that in the fall of 2020, CTF’s North Facility, where Plaintiff resided, was
15
free of COVID-19 infections, but there was an outbreak in other areas of CTF. He claims that
16
Defendants allowed correctional officers from the North Facility to work in the areas with the
17
outbreak and then return to the North Facility. Thereafter, an outbreak occurred in the North
18
Facility, Plaintiff contracted COVID-19, and developed serious symptoms. Plaintiff further
19
alleges that he did not receive adequate medication and other medical care for his symptoms.
20
When liberally construed, these allegations state a cognizable claim for relief against Defendants
21
under Section 1983 for deliberate indifference to his safety and his serious medical needs, in
22
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
23
CONCLUSION
24
1. Defendants Warden Craig Koenig and Chief Deputy Warden L. Martinez shall be
25
served at the California Training Facility.
26
Service shall proceed under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
27
(CDCR) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance
1 with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on CDCR via email the following documents: the
2 Complaint, a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, this Order, a CDCR Report of E-Service
3 Waiver form, and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiff.
4 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall provide
5 the Court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the Court which Defendant(s)
6 listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United
7 States Marshal Service (USMS) and which Defendant(s) decline to waive service or could not be
8 reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the
9 California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court a waiver of
10 service of process for the Defendant(s) who are waiving service.
11 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each
12 Defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a
13 USM-205 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies
14 of this Order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each Defendant who has
15 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E-
16 Service Waiver.
17 2. Defendants shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form
18 within the deadline provided on the form. They shall also file an answer in accordance with the
19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
20 3. To expedite the resolution of this case:
21 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is issued, Defendants shall file a
22 motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported by
23 adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil
24 Procedure 56 and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the
events at issue. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary
25
judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
26
All papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.
27
1 separate paper, the appropriate notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th
2 Cir. 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012).
3 c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the
4 Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed.
5 Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him
6 pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
7 d. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the opposition is
8 filed.
e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No
9
hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.
10
4. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants or
11
their counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to
12
Defendants or their counsel.
13
5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
14
No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the
15
parties may conduct discovery.
16
Plaintiff is reminded that state prisoners may review all non-confidential material in their
17
medical and central files, pursuant to In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974), 15
18
California Code of Regulations § 3370, and the CDCR’s Department Operations Manual §§
19
13030.4, 13030.16, 13030.16.1-13030.16.3, 13030.21, and 71010.11.1. Requests to review these
20
files or for copies of materials in them must be made directly to prison officials, not to the Court.
21
//
22
//
23
24
25
26
27
1 6. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
2 || informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
3 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to
4 || do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
5 Civil Procedure 41(b). Reasonable requests for an extension of a deadline will be allowed upon a
6 || showing of good cause if the request is filed prior to the deadline.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: March 4, 2022
9
10 — Seesom val
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
I United States Magistrate Judge
12
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
2 If Defendant moves for summary judgment, he is seeking to have your case dismissed. A
3 motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if
4 granted, end your case.
5 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment.
6 Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--
7 that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party
8 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
9
supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your
10
complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to
11
interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts
12
shown in Defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of
13
material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment,
14
if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be
15
dismissed and there will be no trial.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27