Stanley, Jr. v. Sgt Holland

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RODRIC P. STANLEY, JR., Case No. 24-cv-06493-JD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SERVICE v. Re: Dkt. No. 9 11 SGT HOLLAND, et al., Defendants.

14 Plaintiff, a former detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to a global settlement agreement regarding claims arising from his detention. He filed a response. The order to show cause is discharged and the Court will review the complaint.

19 DISCUSSION 20 STANDARD OF REVIEW 21 Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16 LEGAL CLAIMS 17 Plaintiff alleges that jail officials without a hearing, placed him in an unsanitary cell without adequate cleaning supplies and lights that would not turn off. When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement, the proper inquiry is whether the conditions amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). “‘T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Where the State seeks to impose punishment without such an adjudication, the pertinent guarantee is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’” Id. (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-72 n.40 (1977)). The state may detain a pretrial detainee “to ensure his presence at trial and may subject him to the restrictions and conditions of the detention facility so long as those conditions and restrictions do 1 A court presented with a procedural due process claim by a pretrial detainee should first ask if the alleged deprivation amounts to punishment and therefore implicates the Due Process Clause itself; if so, the court then must determine what process is due. See, e.g., Bell, 441 U.S. at 4 537-38 (discussing tests traditionally applied to determine whether governmental acts are punitive in nature). Disciplinary segregation as punishment for violation of jail rules and regulations, for example, cannot be imposed without due process, i.e., without complying with the procedural requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 523-26 (9th Cir. 1996).

9 On August 17, 2022, plaintiff was placed into solitary confinement without any due process by defendant Harrington and defendant Griffin. From August 2022 to November 2022, plaintiff was in a cell that was filthy and smelled of urine and feces. The sink did not have hot water, the toilet would not flush everything, and there was not enough room for plaintiff to do a push up. He was denied cleaning supplies for two months and was not provided a bedroll or blanket for the first two days. The cell also had lights on for 24 hours a day. There was no nondisabled shower, so plaintiff had to use his sink to wash. The yard that plaintiff was allowed to use was too small and did not have direct sunlight. As a result of these conditions, plaintiff suffered for five days with eye burning, headaches, and chest pains. Plaintiff notified defendant Holland of these conditions, but he did not intervene. These allegations are sufficient to proceed against Harrington and Griffin for the placement in the cell without due process and the cell conditions and plaintiff states a claim against Holland due to the cell conditions.

21 Plaintiff also identifies several other defendants but presents no specific allegations against them. He only argues that these defendants were aware what was happening because they were supervisors but failed to intervene. These defendants are dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must describe the specific actions of these individuals and how they violated his constitutional rights. “In a § 1983 or a Bivens action – where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants – the term ‘supervisory liability’ is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 3 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012).

4 Finally, plaintiff presents general allegations regarding conditions after this period that occurred for several years, but he does not provide specific details or identify the actions of any specific defendant. These allegations are dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information.

8 CONCLUSION 9 1. The order to show cause is discharged and the Court will serve the complaint against the defendants noted above. Defendants may raise the issue regarding if his case is within the parameters of the global settlement agreement. The remaining defendants and claims are dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days of service of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of those claims and defendants. The motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 9) is denied because no defendant has been served.

16 2. The Clerk will issue a summons and the United States Marshal will serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) with attachments and copies of this order on Sergeant Holland, Classification Deputy Harrington, and Classification Deputy Griffin at Martinez Detention Facility in Contra Costa County.

20 3. To expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders: 21 a. No later than fifty-six days from the date of service, defendants will file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion will be supported by adequate factual documentation and will conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and will 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 judgment, they will so inform the Court prior to the date his summary judgment motion is due.

27 All papers filed with the Court will be promptly served on the plaintiff.

1 b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants will also serve, on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953- 954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

4 See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement).

7 c. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, will be filed with the Court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,” which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

12 If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),” which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

16 d. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they will do so no later than fifteen days after the opposition is served upon them.

18 e. The motion will be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.

19 No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.

20 4. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants, or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

23 5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

24 No further Court order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are required before the parties may conduct discovery.

26 6. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 || Dated: June 3, 2025 JAMES ATO 7 United St@tes District Judge

QO 16

Z 18 NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed.

A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment.

Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact-- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party 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 supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION) If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions.

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.