Tarcicio Noe Campos v. Lason Medical Pill Line Nurse, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TARCICIO NOE CAMPOS, 11 Case No. 25-cv-03403 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE 13 v. DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH 14 MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO LASON MEDICAL PILL LINE CLERK 15 NURSE, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state inmate currently confined at the Correctional Training Facility 19 (“CTF”), filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a nurse at CTF, the 20 “CDCR Gov’t Claim Office ‘Insurers,’” and the CTF Medical Department.1 Dkt. No. 6 at 21 2. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for Plaintiff to correct various 22 deficiencies in the pleading. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 23 14. For the reasons discussed below, the amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 24 25 DISCUSSION 26 A. Standard of Review 27 1 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 2 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 3 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 4 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 5 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 6 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 7 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 8 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 9 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 10 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 11 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 12 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 13 Plaintiff alleges that at CTF on January 30, 2024, at 7:00 a.m., Defendant Rhoda 14 Binuluan, LVN, gave him medication which he did not recognize. Dkt. No. 23 at 3. 15 Despite informing her that he did not recognize it, he took the medication at her direct 16 order. Id. Subsequently, Plaintiff became so ill that he had to be taken to an outside 17 hospital due to side effects. Id. The hospital staff informed Plaintiff that he almost lost his 18 life. Id. Plaintiff seeks damages. Id. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations are 19 sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious 20 medical needs for forcing Plaintiff to take wrong medication despite his informing her that 21 he did not recognize it. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (deliberate 22 indifference to prisoner’s serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendments proscription 23 against cruel and unusual punishment). 24 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 1 Defendant Rhoda Binuluan. 2 2. Defendant Nurse Rhoda Binuluan shall be served at the CDCR. 3 3. Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California 4 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) e-service program for civil rights 5 cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the clerk is 6 directed to serve on CDCR via email the following documents: the operative complaint 7 and any attachments thereto, Dkt. No. 5, the Court’s initial screening order, Dkt. No. 10, 8 this order of service, and a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form. The clerk also shall 9 serve a copy of this order on the plaintiff. 10 4. No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR 11 shall provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court 12 which defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need 13 for service by the United States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline 14 to waive service or could not be reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR 15 Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 16 days, shall file with the court a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are 17 waiving service. 18 5. Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the clerk shall 19 prepare for each defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of 20 E-Service Waiver a USM-205 Form. The clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed 21 USM-205 forms and copies of this order, the summons and the operative complaint for 22 service upon each defendant who has not waived service. The clerk also shall provide to 23 the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver. 24 6. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 25 Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 26 respect to the claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above. 1 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal 2 Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot 3 be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any 4 Defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, 5 he shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 6 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the 7 Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the 8 appropriate warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 9 1998) (en banc). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 10 7. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 11 and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 12 motion is filed. 13 8. Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing 15 summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material 16 fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an 17 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent 18 by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff 19 without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); 20 Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 21 9. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after 22 Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 23 10. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 24 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 25 11. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on 26 Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 1 12. | Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 2 || Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 3 || Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 4 13. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 5 || court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a 6 || timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 7 || prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 8 14. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be g || extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: November 20, 2025 Lid } Wh (a) 1 ETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge «14 © 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27