Cruz v. Gutierrez
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-04726
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Cruz v. Gutierrez, Judge Gilliam allowed two prison claims to proceed but denied Cruz’s unrelated default motion.
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz’s civil-rights case against Officer Gutierrez may proceed on the stated First and Eighth Amendment claims. Cruz’s default motion against law librarian Armendadez was denied.
What happened
In Cruz v. Gutierrez, Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, a state prisoner representing himself, sued prison officer Gutierrez under a federal civil-rights law. Cruz alleged that Gutierrez sexually harassed him after Cruz filed complaints against other officers.
The court found that Cruz stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on the alleged sexual touching and a First Amendment claim based on retaliation for his complaints. The court ordered that Gutierrez be served and denied Cruz’s request for a default against a prison law librarian over separate issues involving legal supplies and mailing services.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued an order allowing the two claims against Gutierrez to proceed, while denying the default motion.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Gutierrez · No. 4:19-cv-04726
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 2, 2020
Background
Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant is Pelican Bay State Prison officer Gutierrez. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening law, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Cruz had separately been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
Cruz alleged that he had filed staff complaints against Pelican Bay officers Showers, Jarvis, Tincher, and Kumbat for sexual harassment. He alleged that, on January 19, 2019, Gutierrez retaliated by sexually harassing him during a clothed body search. According to the complaint, Gutierrez intentionally cupped and grasped Cruz’s genitals to cause pain, ran his hand between Cruz’s buttocks, and made a comment referring to the officers against whom Cruz had complained.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court held that, when read liberally, these allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. A cognizable claim is one that is legally sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage. The court also held that the complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim based on the allegation that Gutierrez took adverse action because Cruz had filed staff complaints.
The court did not decide whether Cruz’s allegations were true or whether he would ultimately win. It ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and the United States Marshal to serve Gutierrez with the complaint and the order without requiring advance payment of service fees.
Default Motion
Cruz also filed a pleading titled “Motion of Ex Parte of Default,” seeking a default against North Kern State Prison law librarian Armendadez. Cruz based that request on allegations that Armendadez denied him pleading paper and manila envelopes and that he was denied certain email, mailing, and copying services.
The court denied the motion. It explained that the allegations were unrelated to the complaint’s claims against Gutierrez, arose from events at North Kern State Prison in Kern County within the Eastern District of California, and did not clearly identify a legal basis for the requested relief.
Case Management
The order required Gutierrez to file and serve a summary-judgment motion, another dispositive motion, or a motion to stay no later than 91 days after the order was filed, unless Gutierrez informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Cruz’s opposition and described the notices that must accompany summary-judgment and failure-to-exhaust motions. The order also addressed service of filings, discovery, keeping the court informed of address changes, and other case-management requirements.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.