Israel v. Salinas
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-08818
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 11
In Israel v. Salinas, Judge Donato granted in part and denied in part a dismissal motion, dismissing some claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
Akiva Israel may continue the failure-to-protect claim against Mancillas, Salinas, Diaz, and Muro, and the case otherwise continued against Days, including the federal Equal Protection claim. The failure-to-protect claim against Castillo, Melton, Peterson, J. Gutierrez, Schuyler, J. Gallegos, and Russel was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Any state-law Equal Protection claim was dismissed as moot.
What happened
Akiva Israel, a state prisoner representing herself, sued Robert Salinas and other prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. She alleged that officials failed to protect her from an assault by another inmate and that defendant Days treated her unequally because she is transgender and Jewish.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the failure-to-protect claim against eleven officials because Israel had not properly completed the prison grievance process. They also asked the court to dismiss any state-law equal-protection claim. Israel argued that her grievances gave prison officials enough information about the danger and that the grievance process was effectively unavailable to her.
In an order by Judge James Donato, the court granted and denied the dismissal request in part. It dismissed the failure-to-protect claim against Castillo, Melton, Peterson, J. Gutierrez, Schuyler, J. Gallegos, and Russel without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but denied dismissal of that claim against Mancillas, Salinas, Diaz, and Muro. The court also dismissed any state-law equal-protection claim as moot, and the case continued against the remaining defendants.
The detailed version
- Israel v. Salinas · No. 3:24-cv-08818
- James Donato
- Dec. 19, 2025
Background
Akiva Israel, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative complaint asserted that prison officials failed to protect Israel from a physical and sexual assault by another inmate, supporting an Eighth Amendment claim and related state-law claims. It also asserted a federal Equal Protection claim against defendant Days.
Israel alleged that Days required her to accept inmate Jacob Lichtig as a cellmate even though Days knew Lichtig had assaulted another inmate. Israel said she warned Days and other officials that Lichtig posed a danger, but officials took no action. Israel alleged that Lichtig sexually threatened her and, on October 21, 2023, attempted to rape and kill her and assaulted her. Israel also alleged that Days refused to approve her request to move because Israel is transgender and Jewish, while prior cellmates who were Christian and heterosexual had been allowed to move.
Motion to Dismiss
The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They sought dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim against Melton, Peterson, Salinas, Castillo, Mancillas, Diaz, Muro, J. Gutierrez, Schuyler, J. Gallegos, and Russel for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. They also sought dismissal of any state-law Equal Protection claim under the California Government Claims Act.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available prison administrative remedies before bringing a federal civil-rights action about prison conditions. The court explained that proper exhaustion requires compliance with the prison’s grievance procedures, including requirements to identify or describe involved staff members when possible.
Israel attached portions of Grievance Nos. 468099, 476428, and 473452. The court determined that Grievance No. 468099 was the only grievance that exhausted the failure-to-protect claim at issue because it addressed the danger from being housed with Lichtig. That grievance identified Days, Mancillas, Salinas, Diaz, and Muro, along with other officers, but did not identify or describe Castillo, Melton, Peterson, J. Gutierrez, Schuyler, J. Gallegos, or Russel.
The court rejected Israel’s argument that the grievance process was unavailable. Israel had been unable to obtain protection from Lichtig, but the court distinguished that problem from an inability to use the grievance process. The court found that Israel filed three grievances that appeared to have been considered by prison officials.
Rulings
The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim against Castillo, Melton, Peterson, J. Gutierrez, Schuyler, J. Gallegos, and Russel for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The dismissal was without prejudice to Israel filing an action against those defendants after exhausting administrative remedies.
The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Mancillas, Salinas, Diaz, and Muro for failure to exhaust. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court concluded that Grievance No. 468099 could reasonably be read to allege that these officials knew about the danger and did nothing.
The court dismissed any state-law Equal Protection claim as moot because it had not found that the complaint stated such a claim. The federal Equal Protection claim against Days and the remaining claims continued. The court directed Days, Mancillas, Salinas, Diaz, and Muro to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion on the merits within ninety days after service of the order.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.