govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-09525-1

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 
 
JOSEPH JONES, SFNO No. 667542, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S DEP’T, et al., 
Defendant(s). 
 
Case No. 25-cv-09525-CRB (PR) 
 
 
ORDER OF SERVICE 
 
 
 
 Plaintiff, a pretrial detain ee at the San Francisco County Jail (SFCJ), filed a pro se 
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department 
based on allegations that he was left in a holding cell with other inmates awaiting booking for two 
days, having to sleep “with no blanket on a concrete bench” and being exposed to other inmates 
coughing “without being given a mask.” ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 3. As a result, plaintiff claims he 
“bruised” his hip, his “P.T.S.D. symptoms became worse” and he got “Covid 19.” Id. 
 The court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed it with 
leave to amend to set forth specific facts sufficient to state a viable due process failure-to-protect 
claim under Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and to 
name and link defendant(s) with plaintiff’s allegations of wrongdoing “so as to show how each 
defendant actually and proximately caused the deprivation of plaintiff’s due process rights.” ECF 
No. 4 (Feb. 5, 2026, Order) at 2-3. The court advised plaintiff that a local government agency or 
department may be subject to liability under § 1983 “only where official policy or custom causes 
the constitutional violation of which plaintiff complains.” Id. at 3 (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Social 
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)). 
 Plaintiff filed a timely pr o se First Amended Complaint (FAC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 
alleging that San Francisco Sheriff’s Department failed to protect him from its policy of placing 

 
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 
inmates “in a concrete [holding] cell with nowhere to sleep” despite knowing that “I am legally 
disabled.” ECF No. 6 (FAC) at 3. And SFCJ Captain Jamala Sanford failed to protect him by 
allowing him to be left in the concrete holding cell with other inmates “for over 24 hours, closer to 
48,” without a mask or other protection and he contracted COVID-19 and suffered a thigh injury. 
Id. Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations appear to state arguably cognizable failure-to-
protect due process claims against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and SFCJ Captain 
Jamala Sanford and will be ordered served. See Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071. 
 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 
1. The clerk shall issue summons, and the Un ited States Marshal shall serve, without 
prepayment of fees, (1) a copy of the original and amended complaint in this matter (ECF Nos. 1 
& 6) and all attachments thereto, and (2) a copy of this order on defendants San Francisco 
Sheriff’s Department and SFCJ Captain Jamala Sanford at City Hall, Room 200, 1 Dr. Carlton B. 
Goodlett Place, SF, CA 94102. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on plaintiff. 
2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows: 
 a. No later than 90 days from the date of this order, defendants shall serve and 
file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion for summary judgment 
must be supported by adequate factual documentation and must conform in all respects to Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming 
from the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand 
notice so that plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in 
order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice 
requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served 
concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 
available administrative remedies (where such a motion, rather than a motion for summary 
judgment for failure to exhaust, is appropriate) must be accompanied by a similar notice. Stratton 
v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012); Woods, 684 F.3d at 935 (notice requirement set out 
in Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Albino v. 
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), must be served concurrently with motion to 

 
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 
dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies). 
If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment or 
other dispositive motion, they shall so inform the court prior to the date their motion is due. All 
papers filed with the court shall be served promptly on plaintiff. 
 b. Plaintiff must serve and file an oppo sition or statement of non-opposition to 
the dispositive motion not more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed. 
 c. Plaintiff is advised that a moti on 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 [current Rule 56(c)], that contradicts 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. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A). 
Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 
administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 
prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order to dispute any 
“factual record” presented by the defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 
F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). You have the right to present any evidence to show that you 
did exhaust your available administrative remedies before coming to federal court. Such evidence 
may include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed under penalty of perjury by you or 
others who have personal knowledge of relevant matters; (2) authenticated documents – 

 
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 
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; (3) statements 
in your complaint insofar as they were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you have 
personal knowledge of the matters state therein. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to 
exhaust, the court can decide disputed issues of fact with regard to this portion of the case. 
Stratton, 697 F.3d at 1008-09. 
(The Rand and Wyatt/Stratton notices above do not excuse defendants’ obligation to serve 
said notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 
administrative remedies and motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 935.) 
 d. Defendants must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 
days after the opposition is served and filed. 
 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply is due. No 
hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 
3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 
before the parties may conduct discovery. 
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. 
5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 
and all parties 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 pursuant to Federal Rule 
of Civil Procedure 41(b). 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: 
______________________________________ 
CHARLES R. BREYER 
United States District Judge 
June 17, 2026

Passage view · GavelSight