Lovell v. East Oakland Police Department et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID ANTHONY LOVELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
COOPER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01451-WHO (PR)
SECOND AMENDED ORDER OF
SERVICE;
ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR
NOTICE REGARDING SUCH
MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
Plaintiff David Anthony Lovell III alleges defendants violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by being deliberate indifferent to his serious medical needs. His first
amended complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Lovell has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claims against East Oakland Police Officers Lara, Tellez, Iniguez, Arzate,
and Dr. Cooper at the Santa Rita Jail. The Court directs these defendants to file in
response to the complaint a dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or
before May 26, 2026.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
Case 3:23-cv-01451-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
Lovell alleges that on May 13, 2022, he was deprived of medical care after being
stabbed in the head. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 15 at 2.) He alleges that (i) East Oakland
Police Department Officers Lara and Tellez urged medical staff at Highland Hospital to
“not help” him and interfered with his receiving proper medical care; (ii) Officers Iniguez
and Arzate kept him handcuffed even though his arms were going numb; and (iii) Dr.
Cooper at the Santa Rita Jail failed to provide adequate medical care. (Id. at 2-3.)
When liberally construed, Lovell has stated Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs against Lara, Tellez, Iniguez, Arzate, and Cooper.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States
Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the operative complaint in this
Case 3:23-cv-01451-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
matter (Dkt. No. 15), all attachments thereto, on defendants East Oakland Police Officers
E. Lara, D. Tellez, Iniguez, and Arzate at OPD Police Administration Building, 455 7th
Street, Room B50, Oakland, CA 94607; and on Dr. Cooper c/o Corporate Creations
Network Inc., 7801 Folsom Boulevard #202, Sacramento, CA 95826.
2. On or before May 26, 2026, defendants shall file a motion for summary
judgment or other dispositive motion, if appropriate, with respect to the claim(s) in the
complaint found to be cognizable above.
a. If defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds plaintiff
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), defendants shall do so in a motion for summary judgment, as required by
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014).
b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate
factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor
qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any defendant is of the
opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the
Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due.
3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court
and served on defendants no later than forty-five (45) days from the date defendants’
motion is filed.
4. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after
plaintiff’s opposition is filed.
5. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.
No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date.
6. All communications by the plaintiff with the Court must be served on
defendants, or on defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true
copy of the document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.
7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Case 3:23-cv-01451-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local
Rule 16-1 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.
Plaintiff may use any applicable jail procedures to request copies of (or the
opportunity to review) any reports, medical records, or other records maintained by jail
officials that are relevant to the claims found cognizable in this Order. Such requests must
be made directly to jail officials, not to the Court.
8. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
9. Extensions of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be
extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.
10. A decision from the Ninth Circuit requires that pro se prisoner-plaintiffs be
given “notice of what is required of them in order to oppose” summary judgment motions
at the time of filing of the motions, rather than when the court orders service of process or
otherwise before the motions are filed. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir.
2012). Defendants shall provide the following notice to plaintiff when he files and serves
any motion for summary judgment:
The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they
seek 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
Case 3:23-cv-01451-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ 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.
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2026
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01451-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 5