Johnson v. Rosalez
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-04091
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Johnson v. Rosalez, Judge White dismissed some claims, allowed others to proceed, and ordered additional defendants served.
Paul David Johnson’s equal-protection, emotional-distress, and claims against S. Stribling and L. Peters were dismissed. The retaliation claim against Cuevas and supervisory claims against R. Rosalez, D. Campbell, A. Maxfield, J. Arnold, and R. Broomfield continued, with the latter defendants ordered served.
What happened
In Johnson v. Rosalez, Paul David Johnson, a California prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing claims against state officials who violate federal rights. The court had already found a retaliation claim against Defendant Cuevas sufficient to proceed, and Johnson amended his complaint to add claims against other defendants.
The court found that Johnson’s allegations supported a retaliation claim against Assistant Warden R. Rosalez, Lieutenant D. Campbell, Captain A. Maxfield, Captain J. Arnold, and Warden R. Broomfield based on alleged failures to train, supervise, or discipline Cuevas. But it found no sufficient equal-protection claim because Johnson did not allege that similarly situated prisoners who had sued Cuevas were treated differently. It also found that Johnson’s allegations against S. Stribling and L. Peters were too vague to support retaliation claims, and that his emotional-distress claim lacked the physical injury required for damages under the prisoner-injury law.
Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the equal-protection and emotional-distress claims and dismissed the claims against S. Stribling and L. Peters. The court ordered service of the amended complaint on R. Rosalez, D. Campbell, A. Maxfield, J. Arnold, and R. Broomfield, while the retaliation claim against Cuevas and the supervisory claims against those five defendants continued. The court also set deadlines for defendants’ answers and dispositive motions, including summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Rosalez · No. 4:22-cv-04091
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Paul David Johnson, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint had been served on Defendant Cuevas, and Johnson filed an amended complaint. The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court identifies claims that are legally sufficient and dismisses claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
Claims the Court Allowed to Proceed
Johnson repeated his claim that Cuevas retaliated against him for filing a prior lawsuit. The court stated that this claim had already been found cognizable, meaning legally sufficient to proceed.
Johnson also added claims against Assistant Warden R. Rosalez, Lieutenant D. Campbell, Captain A. Maxfield, Captain J. Arnold, and Warden R. Broomfield for allegedly failing to train, supervise, or discipline Cuevas. Construing Johnson’s allegations liberally, the court found a cognizable claim against these defendants on the theory that their errors caused Cuevas to commit the alleged constitutional retaliation.
Claims the Court Dismissed
The court dismissed Johnson’s equal-protection claim against Cuevas and the other defendants involved in that allegation. Johnson alleged that Cuevas, S. Stribling, and L. Peters singled him out for harassment when he returned from the yard. But the court explained that Johnson alleged Cuevas sexually harassed him because of his prior lawsuit, not that Cuevas treated similarly situated prisoners who had also sued him differently. Without that comparison, the court found no cognizable equal-protection claim.
The court also dismissed the retaliation claims against S. Stribling and L. Peters. Johnson alleged generally that they harassed him because of his prior lawsuit, but he did not describe specific actions they took. The court found that this allegation was too conclusory to show that their conduct would have discouraged an ordinary person from exercising the right to file a lawsuit.
Finally, the court dismissed Johnson’s claim that the defendants caused him severe emotional distress. Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner seeking damages for mental or emotional injuries suffered while incarcerated must first show a physical injury. The court stated that Johnson alleged no physical injury caused by the defendants.
Order
Judge Jeffrey White ordered that the equal-protection and emotional-distress claims be dismissed and that the claims against S. Stribling and L. Peters be dismissed. The court ordered that Assistant Warden R. Rosalez, Lieutenant D. Campbell, Captain A. Maxfield, Captain J. Arnold, and Warden R. Broomfield be served at San Quentin State Prison through the prison system’s electronic-service process, with United States Marshal service to follow for any defendant who did not waive service.
The order required defendants, including Cuevas and the defendants ordered served, to file an answer and a summary-judgment motion or other dispositive motion within the specified deadlines. It also allowed discovery to proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Johnson of his responsibility to prosecute the case and keep the court informed of any address change.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.