Gutierrez v. Robertson
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-05172
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Gutierrez v. Robertson, Judge Chhabria dismissed some claims, dismissed two defendants, and ordered service on an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim.
Carlos Gutierrez’s case continues only on the individual-capacity failure-to-protect claim ordered served against Allison, J. Robertson, J. Smith, L. Deters, and J. Silva. The official-capacity claims were dismissed, the Rules Violation Report claim was dismissed without leave to amend, and J. Hendrix and J. Frisk were dismissed.
What happened
In Gutierrez v. Robertson, Carlos Gutierrez, a California state prisoner representing himself, amended his civil-rights complaint about gang violence and an assault at Pelican Bay State Prison. He alleged that prison officials failed to protect him from known conflicts between Bulldogs and Sureños and then issued him a false disciplinary report.
The court dismissed all claims against the defendants in their official capacities because of the state’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It also dismissed the disciplinary-report claim without leave to amend and dismissed J. Hendrix and J. Frisk. The court ordered electronic service on Allison, J. Robertson, J. Smith, L. Deters, and J. Silva for Gutierrez’s failure-to-protect claim.
Judge Vince Chhabria also set deadlines for dispositive motions, opposition briefs, and replies, and allowed discovery to proceed. The case therefore continues on the failure-to-protect claim against the defendants ordered served.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez v. Robertson · No. 3:24-cv-05172
- Vince Chhabria
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Carlos Gutierrez, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning inter-gang violence and a gang-related assault at Pelican Bay State Prison. The amended complaint named J. Robertson, J. Smith, L. Deters, J. Silva, J. Frisk, J. Hendrix, and Allison in both their individual and official capacities.
Gutierrez alleged that the defendants failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. According to the allegations, prison officials knew that Bulldogs and Sureños were mortal enemies but allowed them to be together in the recreational yard. Gutierrez alleged that two Bulldogs members or associates assaulted him there on December 15, 2022, after Silva assured him that he would be in the yard with Sureños. He also alleged that Silva, Deters, and Hendrix were involved in a false Rules Violation Report accusing him of fighting, and that Frisk found him guilty and assessed 90 days of good-time credits.
Screening and Analysis
The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money damages from an immune defendant.
The court determined that the amended complaint continued to fail to state a claim concerning the allegedly false disciplinary report. The court noted that Gutierrez had not alleged that the report was reversed or expunged or identified a violation of his rights during the disciplinary process. The court dismissed that claim without leave to amend.
The court stated that the previously assigned magistrate judge had found that Gutierrez stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim concerning both the general integration of gang members on the yard and the December 15 incident. The court ordered that claim served against Allison, Robertson, Smith, Deters, and Silva.
Order
The court ordered the following:
- Claims against all defendants in their official capacities were dismissed under the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- The Rules Violation Report claim was dismissed without leave to further amend.
- Hendrix and Frisk were dismissed.
- Allison, Robertson, Smith, Deters, and Silva were ordered served electronically.
The court established a schedule for any summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, Gutierrez’s opposition, and the defendants’ reply. It also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order cautioned Gutierrez that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.