Mason v. C.D.C.R Officers

Background

Joshua Mason, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had ordered electronic service on nine defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. Six defendants were served. The court lacked enough information to identify Correctional Officer Salcedo and had identified at least three correctional officers named Gonzalez who worked at the prison when the incident occurred.

Mason responded that the Gonzalez defendant was Correctional Officer F. Gonzalez and that Salcedo was a female correctional officer actually named A. Acevedo. Nurse Cienega also could not be served at the prison. The opinion states that Cienega had previously worked for Management Solutions, LLC, was then employed by Sumo Staffing, and that the court received Cienega’s confidential last-known address. The court stated that a concurrent order would direct service on Cienega at that address under seal.

Order

The court ordered service of the third amended complaint and its attachments on Correctional Officers F. Gonzalez and A. Acevedo, who transported Mason to surgery on January 6, 2022. The officers must respond to the claims the court found legally sufficient to proceed. Service will begin through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program.

The clerk must send the complaint, attachments, order, a service-waiver report, and summons to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Within 40 days after receiving the order by email, that agency must report which defendants will waive service and which decline or could not be reached. The California Attorney General’s Office must then file waivers for defendants who agree to waive service within 21 days. For any defendant who does not waive service, the clerk must prepare forms for service by the United States Marshals Service.

Deadlines and procedure

By April 21, 2025, defendants must file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the claims allowed to proceed. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to resolve a claim without a trial when the required facts are not genuinely disputed. Any exhaustion defense based on Mason’s alleged failure to use available prison grievance procedures must be raised in a summary-judgment motion. The court also stated that summary judgment or qualified immunity cannot be granted when material facts are disputed.

Mason’s opposition is due 45 days after defendants file their motion, and defendants’ reply is due 15 days after Mason files his opposition. The motion will be considered submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one. The parties may conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order authorizing discovery.

The order reminded Mason that he must serve his communications on defendants or their counsel, prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. Failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order also required defendants to give Mason a specified notice explaining how to oppose a summary-judgment motion when they file one.

Disposition

This is an order of service and case management. It orders service and sets procedures and deadlines; it does not decide the merits of Mason’s civil-rights claims or rule on a summary-judgment motion.