Stockton v. Smith
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-06676
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Stockton v. Smith, Judge Gilliam found an Eighth Amendment safety claim sufficient for screening and ordered service of the complaint.
Robert John Stockton and the named Pelican Bay State Prison officials—Steven Smith, C. Durham, and J. Juneau—are affected. The case proceeds past initial screening on Stockton’s alleged Eighth Amendment safety claim, subject to later motions and proceedings.
What happened
Robert John Stockton, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, sued under a federal civil-rights law without a lawyer. He alleged that prison officials placed inmate Winson in his restricted-custody group despite knowing Winson had attacked white inmates before, and that Winson later attacked Stockton with a weapon.
The court screened Stockton’s second amended complaint as required in prisoner cases. Reading the complaint generously, the court found that Stockton stated a claim that the officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against dangerous prison conditions.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered service of the complaint and identified the claim as sufficient to proceed against warden Steven Smith and correctional counselors C. Durham and J. Juneau. The order also set deadlines for a possible motion for summary judgment or another motion resolving the case, and for Stockton’s response.
The detailed version
- Stockton v. Smith · No. 4:24-cv-06676
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 5, 2025
Background
Robert John Stockton, an inmate currently housed at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court considered Stockton’s second amended complaint under the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The complaint named Pelican Bay State Prison warden Steven Smith and correctional counselors C. Durham and J. Juneau. Stockton alleged that, on or about May 22, 2024, the defendants placed inmate Winson in Stockton’s Restricted Custody General Population group even though they allegedly knew that Winson had a history of attempting to murder white inmates when approved to group with them. Stockton alleged that on May 31, 2024, Winson attacked him in the recreation yard with a weapon.
Screening Analysis
The court explained that prisoner complaints must be screened and that claims may be dismissed if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, while still providing more than labels, conclusions, or an unsupported accusation.
The court held that, when read liberally, Stockton’s allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his safety. The court cited the rule that prison officials must take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners.
Order
The court ordered service on the listed defendant described in the service provision as the Pelican Bay State Prison warden, using the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order required the agency to report which listed defendants would waive service and provided for United States Marshals Service forms for any defendant who did not waive service.
The order separately stated that the complaint alleged a cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-inmate-safety claim against Steven Smith, C. Durham, and J. Juneau. It directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Stockton’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, stated that no hearing would be held on the motion, and provided additional instructions about discovery, service of papers, address changes, prosecution of the case, and requests for more time. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.