Johnson v. Lara
- Edward Davila
- 5:24-cv-04529
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Johnson v. Lara, Judge Davila allowed retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims to proceed, ordered service, and required a later dispositive motion.
Lacedric Williams Johnson and Correctional Officer Angel Guevara Lara; the order allows Johnson’s retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims, along with related state-law claims, to proceed to service and further litigation.
What happened
Lacedric Williams Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Correctional Officer Angel Guevara Lara under a federal civil-rights law. Johnson alleged that Lara retaliated against him for filing grievances by conducting excessive cell searches, and that the searches violated his rights and state law.
After screening Johnson’s amended complaint, the court found that it stated legally valid claims for retaliation and violations of the Eighth Amendment. The court also agreed to hear the related California-law claims. This order did not decide whether Johnson will ultimately win those claims.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered that Lara be served and required the defense to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion resolving the case within 91 days. The order also set deadlines for Johnson’s response and the defense reply and allowed discovery under the applicable rules.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Lara · No. 5:24-cv-04529
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 25, 2025
Background
Lacedric Williams Johnson, a state prisoner at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer Angel Guevara Lara. The court had previously dismissed Johnson’s original complaint while allowing him to amend it. Johnson then filed an amended complaint.
Johnson alleged that Lara retaliated against him for filing grievances by subjecting him to excessive cell searches. He also alleged that the searches violated the California regulations governing inspections, amounted to harassment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, and violated California’s Thomas Bane Act. Johnson sought damages.
Screening and Claims
Because Johnson is a prisoner suing a governmental officer, the court was required to screen the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally supportable and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally.
The court found that the amended complaint stated cognizable claims for retaliation and violations of the Eighth Amendment. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over Johnson’s California-law claims. The opinion did not finally resolve the truth of the allegations or determine liability.
Orders
The court ordered that Lara be served at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order provided procedures for obtaining a waiver of service and for serving Lara through the U.S. Marshals Service if necessary.
The court ordered the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable no later than 91 days after the order was filed. Any summary-judgment motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The order stated that summary judgment or qualified immunity cannot be granted if material facts are disputed.
Johnson’s opposition is due 28 days after the defense motion, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, instructed Johnson to serve copies of his communications on the defense, and warned that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against him without a trial. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.