Stuckey v. Howard
- Gonzalez Rogers
- 4:19-cv-03691
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Stuckey v. Howard, Judge Gonzalez Rogers screened a prisoner’s civil-rights case, dismissed some claims, and allowed others to proceed.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey may continue Claims 1, 2, and 4 against the remaining defendants, but his official-capacity money-damages claims and the specified claims against Diaz, Gipson, and Sturdevant were dismissed as stated in the order. The defendants served with the lawsuit must respond under the court’s procedures.
What happened
In Stuckey v. Howard, Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner representing himself, sued prison officials and California corrections officials for money damages under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged harassment, mail tampering, retaliation, a fabricated disciplinary report, racial discrimination, and failures to respond properly to his grievances.
The court dismissed the claims for money damages against all defendants in their official capacities with prejudice. It dismissed the supervisory-liability claims against Ralph Diaz and Connie Gipson without prejudice, and dismissed the racial-discrimination claim against S. Sturdevant without prejudice so it could be filed in a separate case. The court found the remaining claims—Claims 1, 2, and 4—sufficient to proceed against the remaining defendants.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered service of the lawsuit on the defendants involved in the claims that would proceed and set procedures for answers, discovery, and later dispositive motions. The order was issued on January 29, 2020.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. Howard · No. 4:19-cv-03691
- Gonzalez Rogers
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a civil-rights lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sought money damages and had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the federal statute requiring an initial screening of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or employees.
Claims
Stuckey alleged four groups of claims:
- From 2017 through 2018, Defendants Skerik, D. Howard, C. Contreras, S. Peterson, A. Corder, Pope, M. Ford, Villarreal, Balestra, and Frawley allegedly subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment through harassment, mail tampering, conspiracy, and retaliation.
- In fall 2018, C. Contreras and D. Howard allegedly violated his liberty interest through a fabricated and retaliatory misbehavior report that affected his transfer, rehabilitative programs, sentence-reducing credits, sentence modification, or release.
- On April 15, 2019, S. Sturdevant allegedly discriminated against him and treated him differently because of his race.
- From November 2017 through May 2019, Jim Robertson, Ralph Diaz, Connie Gipson, M. Hodges, and S. K. Hemenway allegedly failed to take reasonable action on his grievances, allowing continuing civil-rights violations.
Rulings
The court dismissed, with prejudice, Stuckey’s claims for money damages against all named defendants in their official capacities. The court explained that such claims are treated as claims against the governmental entity and that the state’s immunity barred the requested damages.
The court dismissed, without prejudice, the supervisory-liability claims against Ralph Diaz and Connie Gipson. It stated that liability under § 1983 cannot be based solely on a supervisor’s responsibility for subordinates and found that Stuckey had not alleged facts showing that Diaz or Gipson participated in, directed, or knowingly failed to prevent the alleged violations.
The court dismissed, without prejudice, Claim 3 against S. Sturdevant because it involved a different cause of action and a different defendant from Claims 1, 2, and 4. The court directed that this claim could be brought in a separate civil-rights action. It found Claims 1, 2, and 4 against the remaining defendants cognizable under § 1983, meaning those claims were sufficient to continue at the screening stage.
Case administration
The clerk was directed to send the lawsuit and service-waiver materials to the defendants connected to the claims proceeding, including M. Hodges, S. K. Hemenway, Jim Robertson, T. S. Buchanan, Skerik, D. Howard, C. Contreras, S. Peterson, A. Corder, Pope, M. Ford, Villarreal, Balestra, and Frawley. The order also set procedures for defendants’ answers, summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, exhaustion-related motions, briefing, discovery, and communications with the court.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.