Elghembri v. Evans

Background

Plaintiff Ahmed M. Elghembri, a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer D. Evans. Section 1983 allows individuals to sue state officials who violate their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. This was Elghembri's third amended complaint, meaning the complaint had been revised multiple times during the litigation.

Elghembri alleged three core facts: (1) On March 10, 2022, Evans posted on the internet that Elghembri was a "faggot," knowing other prisoners would see it and that the posting would expose him to violence, threats, and harassment; (2) as a result, he was attacked by other prisoners in March and May of 2025; and (3) Evans threatened him for continuing to pursue his lawsuit.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, federal courts must screen complaints filed by prisoners or those proceeding without paying filing fees. The court must identify cognizable (legally valid) claims and dismiss any that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who has legal immunity. Pro se (self-represented) pleadings must be read liberally and generously.

To survive screening, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is "plausible on its face," per the Supreme Court's standards in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional right and that the violation was committed by someone acting under color of state law.

Constitutional Claims Identified

Eighth Amendment — Deliberate Indifference to Safety The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, protects prisoners from deliberate exposure to serious risks of harm from other inmates. Elghembri's allegation that Evans knowingly posted material designed to expose him to inmate violence — resulting in actual attacks — was found sufficient to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim.

First Amendment — Retaliation The First Amendment protects a prisoner's right to access the courts and pursue litigation without being threatened or punished for doing so. Elghembri's allegation that Evans threatened him for continuing his lawsuit was found sufficient to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim.

Court's Orders

The court ordered the following:

1. Service: The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the operative complaint on defendant D. Evans through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases.

2. CDCR Waiver Process: CDCR has 40 days after email service to report whether Evans will waive (voluntarily accept) formal service of process. If Evans waives service, the California Attorney General's Office must file the waiver within 21 days. If Evans does not waive service, the United States Marshal Service (USMS) will serve him directly.

3. Answer: Evans must file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Dispositive Motion Deadline: On or before January 4, 2027, Evans may file a motion for summary judgment (a motion arguing there are no disputed facts requiring a trial) or another dispositive motion. If Evans believes the case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he must notify the court before that deadline.

5. Exhaustion: If Evans seeks dismissal on the ground that Elghembri failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), that argument must be raised through a motion for summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss, per Ninth Circuit precedent.

6. Briefing Schedule: Elghembri has 45 days after Evans files any dispositive motion to file his opposition; Evans then has 15 days to file a reply.

7. Discovery: The parties may conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without a separate court order.

8. Notice to Pro Se Plaintiff: When Evans files any summary judgment motion, he must include a standard notice explaining to Elghembri what he must do to oppose it, as required by Ninth Circuit precedent in Woods v. Carey and Rand v. Rowland.

9. No hearings will be held on any motion unless the court specifically orders one.

Summary of Disposition

The court found that Elghembri's third amended complaint stated cognizable First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims against D. Evans and ordered the case to proceed to the service and responsive-pleading stage. No claims were dismissed.