Ronquillo v. CDCR

Background

Gabriel Alexander Ronquillo, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to protect him from stabbings by other inmates on two separate occasions. The court had ordered service on those claims and had already found that Ronquillo stated a claim against the on-duty gunner involved in one stabbing.

One defendant’s identity was initially unknown. Ronquillo sought an incident report to identify the on-duty gunner who allegedly observed him being stabbed for approximately one minute before intervening and firing rubber bullets. After difficulties obtaining the information, the court directed defense counsel either to respond to the subpoena or to treat it as a discovery request. Counsel reported that he was obtaining the requested incident reports and identified the unknown defendant as Correctional Officer A. Alejo. Counsel and Ronquillo also held a telephone conference to discuss the issue.

Service and Case Schedule

The court ordered that Alejo be served electronically at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The Clerk was directed to send the operative complaint, the order of service, a service-waiver form, and a summons to the department. The order describes the procedures for reporting whether service is waived and for arranging service through the United States Marshals Service if necessary.

Father Manuel Chavira had not yet been served. Court staff obtained an older address from prison officials, but the court stated that it was unclear whether Chavira still lived there. The United States Marshals Service will attempt service at that address. If service is unsuccessful, Ronquillo must provide more information to locate Chavira. The court stated that failure to serve him may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Pending Dispositive Motion and Discovery

The court noted that several defendants had appeared and that a dispositive motion had been filed on October 28, 2024. Ronquillo was required to file an opposition to the pending summary-judgment motion by December 18, 2024.

The court ordered that, no later than 60 days after service of the order, the served defendant must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, supported by adequate factual materials and complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Any summary-judgment motion must include records and incident reports concerning the events at issue. The defendant must promptly serve filed papers on Ronquillo and provide the required notices explaining how to oppose summary judgment and, if asserted, a defense based on failure to complete available administrative remedies.

Ronquillo’s opposition will be due 30 days after the motion is served, and any reply will be due 15 days after the opposition. The court stated that the motion will be considered submitted on the reply deadline unless the court later orders a hearing. Discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order.

Disposition

Judge Eumi K. Lee entered an order of service. The order did not decide whether Ronquillo ultimately will prevail on his failure-to-protect claims. It ordered service on Alejo, directed an attempt to serve Chavira, and established procedures and deadlines for the pending and future dispositive motions. The order also required Ronquillo to serve his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and prosecute the case; failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).