Hayes v. Martinez
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-03372
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Hayes v. Martinez, Judge Orrick allowed Henry Hayes’s Eighth Amendment claims to proceed, dismissed claims against two defendants, and ordered service and further motions.
Henry C. Hayes and the defendants named in the order. Claims against Rhoda Nasr and Jim Robertson were dismissed and those defendants were terminated; the remaining seven defendants were ordered to respond to Hayes’s cognizable Eighth Amendment claims.
What happened
In Hayes v. Martinez, Henry Hayes alleged that Pelican Bay State Prison staff forced him to wear synthetic-fiber underwear despite his allergy and preference for cotton underwear. The court found that his allegations stated Eighth Amendment claims against seven defendants.
The court dismissed Hayes’s claims against nurse Rhoda Nasr and Jim Robertson. It ordered the remaining defendants to be served and directed them to file a motion addressing the remaining claims or another notice by January 27, 2020.
Judge William Orrick also denied Hayes’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because the fee had been paid. The order set deadlines for responses, allowed discovery, and gave instructions about any future summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Hayes v. Martinez · No. 3:19-cv-03372
- William Orrick
- Oct. 17, 2019
Background
Henry C. Hayes alleged that, in 2019, staff at Pelican Bay State Prison required him to wear prison-issued underwear containing synthetic materials to which he was allergic, although he preferred to wear cotton underwear that he had purchased.
Screening and Claims
Because Hayes was a prisoner seeking relief from government personnel, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that, when read broadly, the complaint stated claims under the Eighth Amendment against Dr. Mauricio Martinez, A. Harris, D. Nelson, Fillipia, Tiffany Greiger, Dr. Jacobsen, and S. Manion. The opinion refers to these as claims against persons acting under state law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court dismissed all other claims. It dismissed the claims against nurse Rhoda Nasr because she merely filed a request for Hayes to receive a medical evaluation, which the court found did not state an Eighth Amendment claim. It also dismissed the claims against Jim Robertson because the complaint did not show Robertson’s personal knowledge of or involvement in the alleged violations. The court explained that a supervisor is not automatically responsible for an employee’s conduct based only on the supervisory relationship.
Orders and Procedure
The court ordered the clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the complaint and order, without requiring Hayes to prepay service fees, on the seven defendants whose claims were found cognizable. It also ordered courtesy copies sent to the California Attorney General’s Office.
The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims by January 27, 2020. If they sought dismissal for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court instructed them to raise that issue in a summary-judgment motion. The order also set deadlines for Hayes’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, allowed discovery, and required defendants to provide certain incident-related or medical records when applicable.
The court directed defendants to give Hayes a specific notice when filing any summary-judgment motion, explaining that such a motion could end the case and that Hayes could not rely only on his complaint to oppose it. Judge William Orrick denied Hayes’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because the fee had already been paid, directed the clerk to terminate Nasr and Robertson as defendants, and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.