Cruz v. Kumbat

Background

Guillermo Trujillo Cruz, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to sue for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by someone acting under state authority. Cruz alleged that Pelican Bay officer Kumbat violated his constitutional rights.

The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an initial screening of a prisoner’s case against a government entity, officer, or employee. At this stage, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said it would read Cruz’s filing liberally because he was representing himself.

Allegations and Screening Results

Cruz alleged that on July 19, 2018, Kumbat tried to get him to show her his penis for her personal sexual gratification. He also alleged that, while Kumbat was conducting a personal-property inventory before Cruz’s transfer to court in an unrelated case, she maliciously and sadistically hit his genitals, causing pain, distress, and annoyance. Cruz further alleged that Kumbat spread a rumor on the main yard that he had touched her private parts, intending to provoke other prisoners to attack him.

The court found that the allegation that Kumbat hit Cruz’s genitals stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for sexual harassment. “Cognizable” means that the allegation was legally sufficient to continue past the initial screening stage. The court found that the allegation that Kumbat deliberately spread the rumor stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to Cruz’s safety—that is, allegedly failing to protect him from a serious risk of violence.

The court found that Cruz’s allegation that Kumbat tried to get him to expose himself did not state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. The court explained that not every instance of verbal sexual harassment or unwanted touching violates the Eighth Amendment, and that the alleged harassment must be sufficiently serious, pervasive, or widespread.

Motion to Submit Exhibits

Cruz moved to submit prison grievances that he had not attached to his complaint. The court denied that motion as unnecessary. It stated that Cruz could file exhibits if he wished, but discouraged filing evidence before it was needed to support or oppose a dispositive motion or at trial.

Order and Case Status

The court ordered that the complaint’s cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Kumbat proceed and directed the clerk to issue a summons. The United States Marshal was ordered to serve Kumbat with the complaint and the order without requiring advance payment of fees.

The court also set deadlines for Kumbat to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion, for Cruz to respond, and for Kumbat to reply. It explained that summary judgment can end a case when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result. The order permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave Cruz instructions about serving filings, keeping the court informed of address changes, and prosecuting the case.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the exhibit motion and issued the order of service. The opinion does not constitute a final decision on whether Cruz will ultimately prevail on the claims that were allowed to proceed.