Johnson v. Ascencio

Background

Lacedric Williams Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Todan Ascencio, an Investigative Security Unit officer at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. Johnson’s amended complaint was the operative complaint. His request to proceed without paying the filing fee was left for a separate order.

Claims and screening

Because Johnson is a prisoner suing a government officer, the court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Johnson alleged that Ascencio retaliated against him for filing grievances and lawsuits by personally singling him out for a cell search on December 18, 2024, and damaging his property. He also alleged that the searches violated California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3287(2), and that the excessive searches amounted to harassment violating the Eighth Amendment. He further asserted a claim under California Civil Code section 52.1 and sought damages.

The court found cognizable, meaning legally sufficient at the screening stage, claims for retaliation and violation of the Eighth Amendment. It also exercised supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear a related state-law claim, over the California Civil Code section 52.1 claim. The order did not resolve the factual or legal merits of those claims.

Order

The court ordered that Todan Ascencio be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. If service was not waived, the clerk was directed to prepare documents for service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court directed the defendant to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the case or claims. The order stated that any summary-judgment motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed.

Johnson’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion was filed, and the defendant’s reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, instructed Johnson to serve copies of his court communications on the defendant or counsel, and warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with orders could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b). Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on August 21, 2025.