Edgar E. Calderon, Jr. v. California Department of Corrections, et al.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 3:26-cv-03375
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Calderon v. California Department of Corrections, Judge Seeborg allowed an Eighth Amendment claim against San Quentin's warden to proceed while dismissing all other claims and defendants.
State prisoners who allege that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to dangerous conditions that led to injuries at the hands of other prisoners, particularly those suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Northern District of California.
What happened
In Calderon v. California Department of Corrections, No. 26-cv-03375-RS, prisoner Edgar E. Calderon, Jr. sued under the federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983), alleging that on June 21, 2025, he was attacked by other prisoners at San Quentin State Prison, thrown off the fifth tier, and injured. He claimed that Warden Chance Andes knew that the absence of guard rails created a dangerous condition but failed to act, which contributed to the severity of his injuries.
The court conducted the mandatory preliminary screening required whenever a prisoner sues a government official, asking whether the complaint states a plausible legal claim. The court found that Calderon's allegations were sufficient to support Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference and failure to protect against Warden Andes. However, the court dismissed all claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation because Calderon provided no specific factual support for a claim against that agency.
United States District Judge Richard Seeborg ordered the lawsuit to move forward against Warden Andes, directed the clerk to serve the defendant, and set a deadline of January 4, 2027 for Andes to file a dispositive motion (such as a motion for summary judgment) or a notice about such a motion. All other defendants were terminated from the case.
The detailed version
- Edgar E. Calderon, Jr. v. California Department of Corrections, et al. · No. 3:26-cv-03375
- Susan Van Keulen
- Aug. 21, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Edgar E. Calderon, Jr., a state prisoner, filed a pro se (self-represented) complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute that allows suits against state officials who violate constitutional rights. He alleged that on June 21, 2025, he was attacked by other prisoners at San Quentin State Prison and thrown off the fifth tier, sustaining injuries. He attributed the severity of those injuries to the warden's failure to install guard rails. He named as defendants Chance Andes (identified as Warden of San Quentin State Prison) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Mandatory Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Because Calderon is a prisoner suing a governmental entity or official, the court was required by statute (28 U.S.C. § 1915A) to screen the complaint before allowing it to proceed. Under this screening, the court must identify cognizable (legally viable) claims and dismiss those that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from a defendant who is immune. Pro se complaints are construed liberally — that is, the court reads them generously in the plaintiff's favor.
To survive screening under the Iqbal/Twombly standard, a complaint must allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A § 1983 claim requires: (1) violation of a right secured by the U.S. Constitution or federal law, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law (i.e., exercising government authority).
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court found that Calderon's allegations — that Warden Andes was aware of the danger created by the absence of guard rails and yet took no action, and that this directly contributed to the severity of Calderon's injuries when he was attacked and thrown from the fifth tier — stated plausible Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference and failure to protect. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and requires prison officials to take reasonable steps to protect prisoners from harm. These claims against Warden Andes were allowed to proceed.
Claims Dismissed
All claims against the CDCR were dismissed because Calderon provided no specific factual allegations to support a claim against that agency. The CDCR was terminated as a defendant. The court did not specify whether these dismissals were with or without prejudice.
Scheduling and Procedural Orders
The court ordered the following:
- The clerk is directed to issue a summons and serve the complaint on Warden Andes through CDCR's electronic service program for civil rights cases brought by CDCR prisoners. - Andes must file an answer and, on or before January 4, 2027, file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such a motion, addressing the cognizable claims. - If Andes seeks to dismiss on the ground that Calderon failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)), that argument must be raised in a motion for summary judgment, not a standalone motion to dismiss, per Ninth Circuit precedent. - Calderon has 45 days from the filing of any dispositive motion to file his opposition; Andes then has 15 days to file a reply. - Discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without further court order. - No hearing will be held on any motion unless the court specifically orders one. - Consistent with Ninth Circuit requirements for pro se prisoner plaintiffs, the defendant must provide Calderon with notice of what is required to oppose a summary judgment motion at the time such a motion is filed.
Who Must Act and When
Warden Chance Andes is the sole remaining defendant and must respond to the complaint and file a dispositive motion by January 4, 2027. Calderon is responsible for keeping the court informed of his address and complying with court orders; failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.