Aguilera v. Ducart

Background

Angel Aguilera, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, on May 24, 2017, correctional officials responding to an incident deliberately shot him in the face. According to the amended complaint, Molina ordered the use of deadly force, and Hendrix, Vick, and Gonzalez fired assault rifles. Aguilera alleged that he was not acting aggressively or assaulting anyone when he was shot.

Aguilera also alleged that officials took approximately one hour to ensure that he received medical care at Sutter Coast Hospital. He asserted that Ducart was responsible because the officials were under Ducart’s supervision. The opinion’s reproduced text is incomplete in the portion describing what happened after Aguilera went into a coma and was placed in administrative segregation.

Screening and prior ruling

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. The court had previously denied a motion to dismiss Aguilera’s excessive-force claims against Molina, Hendrix, Gonzalez, and Vicks, while granting dismissal of the deliberate-indifference claim against Ducart and allowing Aguilera to amend that claim.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the amended complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Molina, Hendrix, Vick, and Gonzalez. In this context, “cognizable” means the allegations were sufficient to permit the claim to proceed past the required initial screening.

The court held that the amended complaint still failed to state a cognizable claim against Ducart. It explained that § 1983 does not impose liability solely because one person supervises another person who allegedly violated the Constitution. Because Aguilera had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not corrected this deficiency, the court dismissed Ducart from the action with prejudice.

Disposition

The order states that the amended complaint presents an excessive-force claim against Molina, Hendrix, Vick, and Gonzalez. It dismisses Ducart from the action with prejudice. It also requires the defendants to file and serve a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless they notify the court that the case cannot be resolved that way. Aguilera’s opposition is due 28 days after the motion, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. No hearing will be held on the motion.