Johnson v. Espinoza
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-09197
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Larvester J. Johnson v. Ebenezer Espinoza, Judge Orrick denied Johnson’s motions, denied default judgment, and ordered discovery and a deposition.
Johnson’s two motions for summary judgment and his motion for default judgment were denied. Espinoza’s summary-judgment motion was not yet decided. Johnson must complete the ordered discovery and attend a deposition, or the action likely will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
What happened
Larvester J. Johnson v. Ebenezer Espinoza concerns Johnson’s claim that Sergeant Ebenezer Espinoza retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to access the courts. Johnson described several alleged searches, confiscations, assaults, and other actions, but he did not complete Espinoza’s discovery requests or sit for a deposition.
Johnson filed two motions asking for summary judgment, and he also sought default judgment. Espinoza filed his own summary-judgment motion, but Johnson did not respond to it. The court said Johnson’s retaliation allegations did not establish that retaliation was the reason for Espinoza’s actions and that important facts remained disputed.
Judge William Orrick denied both of Johnson’s summary-judgment motions and his motion for default judgment. The court deferred ruling on Espinoza’s summary-judgment motion, ordered Johnson to answer discovery requests and provide documents, and ordered him to attend a deposition. The court warned that failure to comply likely would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Espinoza · No. 3:22-cv-09197
- William Orrick
- Dec. 22, 2025
Background
Johnson brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging that Sergeant Ebenezer Espinoza retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right to access the courts. The court had previously dismissed Johnson’s access-to-court claims with prejudice because he had not shown an actual injury from the alleged denial of court access. His retaliation claims remained.
Johnson alleged that Espinoza searched or confiscated his legal papers, caused or participated in assaults, wrote a false rules-violation report, and instructed officers not to take him to court. Johnson also alleged that Espinoza threatened him. The court noted that Johnson’s first amended complaint was the only evidence presented from his perspective and that he had refused to sit for a deposition or comply with Espinoza’s discovery requests.
Rulings on Johnson’s Motions
The court denied Johnson’s first motion for summary judgment. To the extent the motion attempted to relitigate the already-dismissed access-to-court claims, the court denied it because those claims had already been dismissed with prejudice. As to the retaliation claims, the court concluded that Johnson’s statements did not provide enough evidence that retaliation for protected conduct was the substantial or motivating reason for Espinoza’s actions. The court also stated that at least some material facts were disputed and that more information was needed about certain incidents.
The court denied Johnson’s second motion for summary judgment because it repeated his first motion. The court also denied Johnson’s motion for default judgment, explaining that the docket showed Espinoza had defended against the action.
Espinoza’s Motion and Discovery Order
The court deferred ruling on Espinoza’s motion for summary judgment until Johnson completed the required discovery and sat for a deposition. Within 30 days of the order, Espinoza was directed to serve requests for production and interrogatories on Johnson and file a notice confirming service. Johnson was directed to respond fully within 45 days after service, including answering the questions and providing requested documents. Within 30 days after completing that discovery, Johnson was directed to sit for a deposition arranged by Espinoza’s counsel.
The court warned that failure to follow these instructions within the stated deadlines likely would result in dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order also set a case-management conference for April 7, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. by videoconference.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.