Nicholson v. Sando
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-07791
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Nicholson v. Sando, Judge Davila allowed Eighth Amendment claims to proceed, denied counsel without prejudice, and ordered service and a dispositive motion.
Charles Nicholson’s Eighth Amendment claims against Correctional Officer D. Sando were allowed to proceed past preliminary screening. Nicholson’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice, and Sando was directed to respond through service and a dispositive motion.
What happened
Nicholson v. Sando concerns Charles Nicholson’s claim that Correctional Officer D. Sando used pepper spray on him while he was trying to enter his cell and then did not let him shower and decontaminate. Nicholson said he was wearing mechanical waist restraints and suffered vision loss and breathing problems.
The court found that these allegations stated claims under the Eighth Amendment for excessive force and deliberate indifference to health. The order did not decide whether Nicholson will ultimately win those claims.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied Nicholson’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, ordered the clerk to send the lawsuit to Sando, and directed the defendant to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion resolving the case within the specified time.
The detailed version
- Nicholson v. Sando · No. 5:19-cv-07791
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
Charles Nicholson, identified as a California state prisoner, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer D. Sando at Salinas Valley State Prison. Nicholson alleged that on July 29, 2019, Sando sprayed him with pepper spray while he was merely trying to walk into his cell. Nicholson alleged that he was wearing mechanical waist restraints, was not allowed to shower and properly decontaminate, and consequently experienced loss of vision and breathing problems. He sought damages, a declaration, and an injunction.
Screening and Claims
Because a prisoner sought relief from a governmental officer, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that, liberally construed, Nicholson’s allegations stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force based on the alleged unwarranted use of pepper spray and deliberate indifference to his health based on the alleged failure to permit decontamination. The court did not resolve the merits of those claims.
Appointment of Counsel
Nicholson requested appointed counsel, stating that he was mentally ill and did not exactly know what to do. The court explained that appointed counsel in a civil case is generally available only in exceptional circumstances. It found that Nicholson had clearly presented his claims without a lawyer, that the Eighth Amendment issues were not complex, and that his allegations, if substantiated, indicated a good likelihood of success. The court therefore DENIED without prejudice his motion for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances.
Orders for Further Proceedings
The court ordered the clerk to mail Sando the lawsuit, a request to waive service, the complaint and attachments, and a copy of the order. It directed the defendant to file, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. The order also provided instructions concerning service, responses to a summary-judgment motion, discovery, communications with the court, prosecution of the case, and requests for extensions of time. The order terminated Docket No. 9.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.