Walker v. Espin

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JEFFERY WALKER, Case No. 24-cv-08713 EJD (PR) 7 Plaintiff, ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND OF SERVICE; DIRECTING 8 DEFENDANTS TO FILE v. DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE 9 REGARDING SUCH MOTION; OFFICER ESPIN, et al., INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff, a civil detainee at the San Francisco County Jail (“CJ2”), filed the instant 14 pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers and medical staff at 15 CJ2. Dkt. No. 1. On May 13, 2025, the Court screened the complaint, Dkt. No. 1, and 16 granted leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies of several claims 17 within twenty-eight days. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond would 18 result in the dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims, and that the action would 19 proceed on the cognizable failure to protect claim and related state law claim against 20 Defendants Deputy Espin, Chief Adams, and Captain Collins. Id. at 8. Plaintiff has filed 21 no response in the time provided. Accordingly, this action shall proceed as stated above. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Standard of Review 24 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 25 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 26 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 27 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 1 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 2 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 4 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 5 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 6 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 7 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 8 In the screening order, the Court found the following claims cognizable: 9 1. Failure to Protect 10 Plaintiff claims that in September 2024, he was attacked by another inmate who was a known enemy of his. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 30, 35-36. Plaintiff claims 11 that despite knowing of this threat concern, Defendant Deputy Espin let the inmate out of his cell while Plaintiff was also out on the same tier. Id. ¶ 31- 12 33. The subsequent altercation between Plaintiff and the inmate resulted in a cut to Plaintiff’s upper eye that required stitches, loss of vision, injuries to 13 his knee and elbow, and reinjuries to his neck and back. Id. ¶ 36-38. Plaintiff claims this incident was a result of Defendants’ failure to protect, 14 including properly housing him away from criminal detainees. Id. ¶ 40. He asserts that Defendants Chief Adams and Captain Collins violated his 15 Eighth Amendment right to safety. Id. ¶ 45. 16 The rights of civilly-committed persons are based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that they retain substantive 17 liberty interests in at least the right to basic necessities such as adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care; safe conditions of confinement; 18 and freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16 (1982). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a claim related 19 to conditions of his commitment under the Eighth Amendment but states a cognizable claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants 20 Espin, Adams, and Collins. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1. 21 Plaintiff also raises a state claim for negligent failure to protect. Id. ¶¶ 67- 72. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state claim 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 23 Dkt. No. 8 at 2-3. This action shall proceed on the Fourteenth Amendment failure to 24 protect claim and related state law claim. All other claims and defendants shall be 25 dismissed from this action. 26 // 27 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. This action is proceeding on the failure to protect claim and related state law 4 claim against Defendants Espin, Adams, and Collins. All other claims are DISMISSED 5 with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. 6 The Clerk shall terminate all other defendants from this action as there are no 7 claims against them. 8 2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for 9 Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy 10 of the complaint and all attachments thereto, (Dkt. No. 1), and a copy of this order upon 11 Defendants Officer Espin (#2317), Captain Collins, and Chief Adams via the Office of 12 Chief Legal Counsel for Sheriff’s Dept. (Sheriff’s Dept., Room 456, One Dr. Carlton B. 13 Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102, Attn. Mark Nicco). The Clerk shall also mail a 14 copy of this order to Plaintiff. 15 3. No later than ninety-one (91) days from the date this order is filed, 16 Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with 17 respect to the claims in the complaint found to be cognizable above. 18 a. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate 19 factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 21 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of the 22 opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the 23 Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 24 b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the 25 Ninth Circuit has held that Plaintiff must be concurrently provided the appropriate 26 warnings under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). See 27 Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). 1 4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court 2 and served on Defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date Defendants’ 3 motion is filed. 4 Plaintiff is also advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 5 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment 6 must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential 7 element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to 8 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to 9 the granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. See 10 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 11 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 12 5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after 13 Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 14 6. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 15 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 16 7. All communications by the Plaintiff with the Court must be served on 17 Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true 18 copy of the document to Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 19 8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local 21 Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery. 22 9. While conducting discovery, Plaintiff is directed to attempt to ascertain the 23 name of John Doe Defendants, and file a motion to substitute the amended complaint with 24 these Defendants’ proper names no later than fifty-six (56) days from the date this order 25 is filed. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the claims against these John Doe 26 Defendants for failure to state a claim for relief. 27 10. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 1 |} timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 2 || prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 3 11. | Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be 4 || extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 29, 2025 7 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 «14 15 16 Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28