Calderon v. Koenig

Background

Javier Calderon, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden C. Koenig and Central Facility Captain C. Freeman. The complaint concerns an August 5, 2018 riot at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. Calderon alleged that about 100 Security Threat Group prisoners attacked him with rocks and blunt objects and kicked, punched, and stomped him. He identified vision loss, dizziness, hearing loss, headaches, ringing in his ears, and neck and back pain among his injuries.

Calderon alleged that his sister contacted the prison on August 2, 2018, spoke with Captain Freeman, and warned that a riot was expected on Calderon’s prison yard and that he feared for his safety. He alleged that Koenig and Freeman did nothing to prevent the anticipated violence or protect him. He also alleged that the defendants failed to follow the settlement agreement in the earlier related proceeding known as Ashker, and that this failure contributed to the riot and his injuries.

Screening and Claim

Because Calderon sought relief from prison officials, the court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify legally cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court stated that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under state law.

The court liberally construed Calderon’s complaint and found a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim that Koenig and Freeman failed to protect him from attacks by other inmates. The court also concluded that Calderon’s allegations about the Ashker settlement could support the same failure-to-protect claim because he appeared to allege that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to reduce a known excessive risk to his safety.

The court noted that Calderon did not allege that he was a member of the Ashker settlement class or an intended third-party beneficiary of that agreement. The order therefore did not treat Calderon as independently suing to enforce the settlement; instead, it treated the alleged failure to act under the agreement as supporting his constitutional claim.

Order

The court ordered the clerk to mail Koenig and Freeman the notice of lawsuit, service-waiver forms, complaint, attachments, and a copy of the order. It also directed that a copy be mailed to Calderon. The order explained the defendants’ responsibilities concerning waiver of service and the possible costs of formal service.

The court authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another order. It instructed Calderon to serve his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, prosecute the case, and comply with court orders. It warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The defendants were permitted, no later than 91 days after the order’s filing date, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims. The order established deadlines for Calderon’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would occur unless the court later ordered one. The order was signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge, and dated May 18, 2020.