Walker v. Adams

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JEFFERY WALKER, 7 Case No. 24-cv-03314 EJD (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND OF SERVICE; DIRECTING 9 v. DEFENDANTS TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE 10 CHIEF ADAMS, et al., REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff, a civil detainee at the San Francisco County Jail (“Jail”), filed the instant 15 pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers and medical staff at 16 the Jail. Dkt. No. 1. On May 13, 2025, the Court screened the amended complaint, Dkt. 17 No. 20, and granted leave to file a second amended complaint to correct the deficiencies of 18 several claims within twenty-eight days. Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff was advised that failure to 19 respond would result in the dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims, and that the 20 action would proceed on the cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Ly, 21 Yuzon, and Tiu. Id. at 8. Plaintiff has filed no response in the time provided. 22 Accordingly, this action shall proceed as stated above. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 1 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 2 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 3 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 5 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 6 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 7 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 8 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 9 Plaintiff is a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act 10 (“SVPA”). Dkt. No. 20 ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that on May 2, 2024, Chief Adams ordered 11 Plaintiff to be transferred to San Bruno, to be housed with criminal detainees in the 12 restrictive housing section. Id. ¶ 61. Plaintiff was asleep in C-pod, when Deputies Ly, 13 Yuzon, and Tiu, along with John Does 1-6, entered his cell and used excessive force, 14 which included hits and kicks. Id. ¶¶ 62-63, 66. Plaintiff was then shackled with waist 15 chains on hands and feet, yanked up, placed in a wheelchair and then into a van for transfer 16 to San Bruno. Id. ¶ 68. 17 Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants Deputies Ly, Yuzon, and Tiu used excessive 18 force, liberally construed, states a cognizable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, 19 rather than the Eighth Amendment, because he is a civil detainee. See, e.g., Graham v. 20 Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989) (pretrial detainee protected from use of excessive 21 force by Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment). The claim can also proceed 22 against Defendants John Does 1-6 if Plaintiff can identify them through discovery. See 23 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). 24 As discussed in the Court’s screening order, the claims involving retaliation and 25 deliberate indifference to medical needs as well as his allegations against Defendants 26 Sheriff Miyamoto, Mary Doe and the City and County of San Francisco were insufficient 1 these deficiencies although given an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, these claims shall 2 be DISMISSED with prejudice. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. This action is proceeding on the excessive force claim against Defendants 6 Deputy Ly, Deputy Yuzon, and Deputy Tiu. All other claims are DISMISSED with 7 prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. 8 The Clerk shall terminate all other defendants from this action as there are no 9 claims against them. 10 2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for 11 Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy 12 of the amended complaint and all attachments thereto, (Dkt. No. 20), and a copy of this 13 order upon Defendants Deputy Ly, Deputy Yuzon (#2358), Deputy Tiu via the Office of 14 Chief Legal Counsel for Sheriff’s Dept. (Sheriff’s Dept., Room 456, One Dr. Carlton B. 15 Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102, Attn. Mark Nicco). The Clerk shall also mail a 16 copy of this order to Plaintiff. 17 3. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 18 Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 19 respect to the claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above. 20 a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 21 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 23 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the 24 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 25 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 26 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the 1 warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See 2 Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 4 and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 5 motion is filed. 6 Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 7 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment 8 must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential 9 element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to 10 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to 11 the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See 12 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 13 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 14 5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after 15 Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 16 6. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 17 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 18 7. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on 19 Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 20 copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 21 8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 23 Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 24 9. While conducting discovery, Plaintiff is directed to attempt to ascertain the 25 name of John Doe Defendants, and file a motion to substitute the amended complaint with 26 these Defendants’ proper names no later than fifty-six (56) days from the date this order 1 || Defendants for failure to state a claim for relief. 2 10. ‘It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 3 || court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a 4 || timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 5 || prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 6 11. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 7 || extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: June 25, 2025 EDWARD J. DAVILA 0 United States District Judge 11 12 «14 © 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27