Johnson v. Ascencio

Background

Lacedric Williams Johnson, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Todan Ascencio, an investigative security unit officer at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. Johnson was the only plaintiff and Ascencio was the only named defendant.

Johnson alleged that Ascencio retaliated against him with threats, intimidation, and a fabricated disciplinary report after Johnson helped another prisoner file a grievance against Ascencio. Johnson also alleged that Ascencio later searched and contaminated Johnson’s Ramadan meal on March 28, 2024. Johnson claimed this violated his First Amendment right to freely practice his religion. He also asserted related state-law claims and sought declaratory relief and damages.

Earlier screening and amendment opportunity

The court previously screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a federal court to review a prisoner’s claims against a governmental entity or officer. The court previously concluded that Johnson’s retaliation allegations were sufficient to state a claim. It also found that certain state-law claims were sufficiently related to the retaliation claim to be part of the same case.

The court previously found that Johnson’s allegations were insufficient to state a First Amendment free-exercise claim. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so Johnson could correct that deficiency. The prior order warned that failing to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal of the free-exercise claim and related state-law claim with prejudice, while the retaliation claim and related state-law claims would continue.

Johnson did not file an amended complaint before the deadline passed.

Ruling

The court dismissed Johnson’s claim alleging violation of his right to freely practice his religion under the First Amendment and the related state-law claims with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The action proceeds on the cognizable retaliation claim and related state-law claims.

The court ordered that Ascencio be served at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order also set procedures and deadlines for service, discovery, and defense filings.

The defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the remaining cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. Johnson must respond within 28 days after that motion is filed, and the defendants must file any reply within 14 days after Johnson’s opposition. The order states that no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.

Judge Edward J. Davila also instructed Johnson to serve his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, prosecute the case, and comply with court orders and deadlines.