Baker v. Tanori
- William Orrick
- 3:23-cv-04391
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Baker v. Tanori, Judge Orrick allowed several prisoner claims to proceed, dismissed all other claims and defendants, and denied Baker’s motion as moot.
Timothy Ray Baker, C. Tanori, and R. Carrassco are affected because Baker’s specified claims may proceed against Tanori and Carrassco. The other defendants and claims were dismissed, and the case was directed to continue through service and possible dispositive motions.
What happened
In Timothy Ray Baker v. C. Tanori, et al., Baker alleged that correctional officers used excessive force against him at Salinas Valley State Prison and asserted retaliation and due process claims against C. Tanori.
After screening Baker’s amended complaint, the court found that his excessive-force claims against Tanori and R. Carrassco, retaliation claim against Tanori, and due process claim against Tanori could proceed. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants, including claims concerning allegedly denied clean laundry and claims against supervisors. It ordered service on Tanori and Carrassco and directed them to file a dispositive motion or notice by April 20, 2026. The court also denied as moot Baker’s motion for a ruling on his amended complaint.
Judge William Orrick issued an order beginning the case’s next stage, rather than deciding whether Baker ultimately proved his claims.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Tanori · No. 3:23-cv-04391
- William Orrick
- Dec. 22, 2025
Background
Timothy Ray Baker filed a first amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison used excessive force against him on August 18, 2022, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged that C. Tanori retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment and violated due process.
Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed
Because Baker sought relief from government officers while incarcerated, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that Baker stated cognizable claims—claims sufficient to proceed past this preliminary review—for Eighth Amendment excessive force against C. Tanori and R. Carrassco, a First Amendment retaliation claim against Tanori, and a due process claim against Tanori.
The court dismissed all other claims and defendants. It dismissed Baker’s claim that Tanori prevented him from receiving clean laundry because of his race, finding that Baker provided no facts supporting racial profiling and that the laundry claim was unrelated to the excessive-force and retaliation claims. The court also dismissed the claims against warden Trent Allen and other supervisors because the allegations did not show that they participated in, directed, or were integral to the alleged violations. The court said that reviewing or ruling on an inmate grievance, by itself, did not establish responsibility for the underlying violation.
Orders and Next Steps
The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on Tanori and Carrassco. It directed the defendants, if appropriate, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable by April 20, 2026. The order also set deadlines for Baker’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would be held unless the court later ordered one. The court instructed defendants to provide Baker with specified notice if they file a summary-judgment motion.
Baker’s motion for a ruling on his amended complaint was denied as moot. The Clerk was directed to terminate all defendants except Tanori and Carrassco and to terminate all pending motions. The order screened the pleadings and allowed specified claims to proceed; it did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.