1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT JOHN STOCKTON, Case No. 24-cv-06676-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE 9 v.

10 SMITH, et al., 11 Defendants.

12

13 14 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), has filed a pro 15 se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 22) is 16 before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 17 DISCUSSION 18 I. Legal Standard 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 II. Second Amended Complaint 11 The second amended complaint names as defendants the following Pelican Bay State 12 Prison (“PBSP”) correctional officials: warden Steven Smith, and correctional counselors C. 13 Durham and J. Juneau. The second amended complaint makes the following allegations. On or 14 about May 22, 2024, Defendants placed inmate Winson into Plaintiff’s Restricted Custody 15 General Population (“RCGP”) group, despite knowing that this would thrust Plaintiff “into a 16 Gladiator style pit fight for his life.” Inmate Winson has a lengthy history of attempting to murder 17 white inmates every time he is approved to group with them. This history is documented in PBSP 18 records. On May 31, 2024, inmate Winson waited for Plaintiff to come to the recreation yard, and 19 then pulled a weapon from his pocket and attacked Plaintiff. See generally Dkt. No. 22. 20 Liberally construed, the second amended complaint’s allegations that Defendants were 21 deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety by placing inmate Winson in Plaintiff’s group states a 22 cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (Eighth 23 Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from 24 violence at hands of other prisoners). 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. 27 1. The following defendant(s) shall be served: Pelican Bay State Prison warden 1 2. Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of 2 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners 3 in the CDCR’s custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the 4 CDCR via email at CDCR_OLA_Service_of_Process@cdcr.ca.gov the following documents: the 5 operative complaint (Dkt. No. 22), this order of service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver 6 form and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on the Plaintiff. 7 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall 8 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 9 defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by 10 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or 11 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 12 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court 13 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 14 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 15 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 16 USM-205 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies 17 of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has 18 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 19 Service Waiver. 20 3. As detailed above, the complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate 21 difference to inmate safety claim against Pelican Bay State Prison warden Steven Smith, and 22 correctional counselors C. Durham and J. Juneau. 23 4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 24 a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, Defendants must file 25 and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendants are of the 26 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, Defendants must so inform the 27 Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for summary judgment also must be 1 is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be 3 served concurrently with motion for summary judgment).1 4 b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 5 must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the 6 motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 7 provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 8 Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The 9 motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on 10 the motion. 11 5. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must 13 do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be 14 granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about 15 any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is 16 entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing 17 makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 18 testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out 19 specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, 20 as provided in Rule 56(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and 21 documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit 22 your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. 23 If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. 24 Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A). (The Rand notice above does 25 1 If Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as 26 required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), Defendant 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 Cir. 2014) 27 (en banc) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that 1 not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve said notice again concurrently with a motion for 2 summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939). 3 6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants’ 4 || counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard 5 any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until Defendants’ 6 || counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to 7 Defendants but once Defendants are represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 8 counsel rather than directly to Defendants. 9 7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10 No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 11 before the parties may conduct discovery. 12 8. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the 5 13 Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 14 || fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 3 15 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 16 || pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 3 17 9. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 18 to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. Plaintiff is cautioned that 19 || he must include the case name and case number for this case on any document he submits to the 20 || Court for consideration in this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: 5/5/2025 23 Abppured 3 Mbt)

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge 25 26 27 28