Jacques v. Bautista
- Jeffrey White
- 4:24-cv-01034
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Jacques v. Bautista, Judge White dismissed claims against Okeke but allowed excessive-force and medical-care claims against Bautista and Gomez to proceed.
The claims against Defendant Okeke were dismissed. The claims against Defendants L. Bautista and A. Gomez may proceed, and those defendants were ordered served. The plaintiff and the remaining defendants were given case-management and briefing deadlines.
What happened
In Jacques v. Bautista, a California prisoner filed a civil-rights lawsuit under a federal law allowing claims for violations by state officials. The court screened the amended complaint, as required in prisoner cases, and considered whether the allegations stated legally valid claims.
The court found that the allegations stated claims against Bautista and Gomez involving excessive force and medical care for injuries under the Eighth Amendment. The court found no valid federal claim based on Okeke’s alleged failure to write a report about the incident.
The court dismissed the claims against Okeke, allowed the claims against Bautista and Gomez to proceed, and ordered that those two defendants be served. Judge Jeffrey White also set deadlines for the defendants’ answer and a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion.
The detailed version
- Jacques v. Bautista · No. 4:24-cv-01034
- Jeffrey White
- July 25, 2024
Background
The plaintiff, identified in the opinion as Michael E. Jacques, filed a civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had previously dismissed the case with permission to amend, and the plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff proceeded without a lawyer.
Screening standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer. It must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority.
Claims and ruling
The court held that the allegations, read liberally, stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants L. Bautista and A. Gomez concerning excessive force and medical care for injuries. A cognizable claim is one that is legally sufficient to proceed at this stage; this screening ruling did not decide whether those claims would ultimately succeed.
The court held that the amended complaint did not state a cognizable § 1983 claim against Defendant Okeke based on the alleged failure to write a report about the incident. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Okeke. The claims against Bautista and Gomez may proceed, and the court ordered service of the amended complaint and related documents on those defendants.
Case schedule and additional orders
The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court set October 29, 2024, as the deadline for a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, November 27, 2024, for the plaintiff’s opposition, and December 11, 2024, for a reply. The court also allowed discovery, required the plaintiff to serve copies of communications on the defendants or their counsel, and reminded the plaintiff to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders. The opinion states that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.