Griffin v. Smith

Background

Dejon Griffin, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that an excessive-force incident occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison and that the prison warden implemented an unconstitutional policy that contributed to the incident. Griffin was granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Griffin alleged that, around November or December 2024, Warden Stephen Smith implemented a policy of housing disruptive prisoners from protective-custody yards and prisoners with mental-health issues in the general-population yard. Griffin alleged that Smith knew or should have known that the policy endangered other prisoners and failed to train correctional officers on escort procedures.

Griffin further alleged that on December 6, 2024, he left a religious service with permission to use the restroom and encountered another prisoner in a hallway. Griffin said he attempted to offer assistance in his role as Vice Chairman of the Inmate Advisory Council on B Facility. He alleged that correctional officers Natalia Herrera and Hugo Sanchez were escorting the other prisoner, who had said he intended to attack the first person he encountered, and that Herrera and Sanchez used pepper gas and a baton against Griffin repeatedly instead of preventing the attack.

Screening and claims

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against government officials. Applying the rule that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read generously, the court determined that Griffin had stated the following claims under § 1983:

- An Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and excessive-force claim against Herrera and Sanchez, based on the alleged failure to protect Griffin from the attack and the alleged use of pepper gas and a baton. - A claim against Smith based on implementing a constitutionally defective policy that allegedly caused the violation of Griffin’s rights.

The court did not decide whether Griffin ultimately would prevail on these claims. It ordered that Smith, Herrera, and Sanchez be served.

Settlement referral and stay

The court referred the case to the Northern District of California’s Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman was directed to conduct one or more settlement conferences with the interested parties or their representatives, generally within 120 days of the order or as soon afterward as his calendar permitted. After the settlement proceedings ended, he was directed to report to the court within ten days.

After the complaint was served on the defendants against whom Griffin stated cognizable claims, the court stayed all further proceedings. The order also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order, and it placed responsibility on Griffin to prosecute the case and keep the court and the parties informed of any address change.

Disposition

The court ordered service on Stephen Smith, Natalia Herrera, and Hugo Sanchez through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with United States Marshals Service procedures for defendants who did not waive service. It referred the case to the prisoner mediation program and stayed further proceedings after service. The order was signed by a United States magistrate judge, but the judge’s name is not legible in the provided opinion text.