Michel v. Barroso
- Corl
- 5:23-cv-06626
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Michel v. Barroso, Judge Corl partially dismissed damages claims and ordered service of the remaining claims.
Ramon Michel’s claims against Lieutenant J. Barroso and Sergeant J. Gomez were affected. Requests for monetary relief for mental or emotional distress were dismissed, while the retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims seeking other relief were ordered served.
What happened
Ramon Michel, a California prisoner without a lawyer, sued Lieutenant J. Barroso and Sergeant J. Gomez over retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
The court had found those claims could proceed, but ruled that Michel could not seek money for mental or emotional distress as pleaded. Michel did not file an amended complaint or request more time, so the court dismissed those requests for money and ordered service of the claims seeking other relief.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corl also set deadlines for the defendants’ potentially case-ending motion, Michel’s response, and the defendants’ reply, and allowed discovery to begin under the civil rules.
The detailed version
- Michel v. Barroso · No. 5:23-cv-06626
- Corl
- Oct. 17, 2024
Background
Ramon Michel, identified in the order as a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil action against Lieutenant J. Barroso and Sergeant J. Gomez, officials at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. The complaint asserted retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
The court had previously reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a statute requiring federal courts to screen complaints filed by prisoners against government officials. The court concluded that the retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were capable of judicial determination when read liberally, but that Michel could not recover monetary damages for mental or emotional distress as those claims were pleaded. The court gave Michel leave to file an amended complaint to correct that deficiency.
The deadline passed without Michel filing an amended complaint, requesting an extension, or showing why he had not done so.
Ruling
The court dismissed the claims for monetary relief for mental or emotional distress. It ordered service on Lieutenant J. Barroso and Sergeant J. Gomez based only on the retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims to the extent those claims seek relief other than monetary relief for mental or emotional distress damages.
The order did not decide whether the remaining claims will ultimately succeed. It directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order also directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by January 13, 2025, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Michel’s opposition was due February 12, 2025, and the defendants’ reply was due February 26, 2025.
Other Directions
The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. It also required Michel to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel once counsel was designated. The order reminded Michel that he could request access to or copies of certain nonconfidential prison records directly from prison officials rather than from the court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.