Calderon v. Koenig

Background

Javier Calderon, a prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden C. Koenig and Central Facility Captain C. Freeman. The opinion states that Calderon was incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. His request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee had already been granted.

Calderon alleged that about 100 Security Threat Group prisoners participated in a riot on August 5, 2018. He said he was not a Security Threat Group prisoner but was attacked with rocks and blunt objects and was kicked, punched, and stomped. He alleged injuries including vision loss, dizziness, hearing loss, headaches, ringing in his ears, and neck and back pain. He further alleged that his sister warned Captain Freeman on August 2, 2018, that a riot was expected on Calderon’s prison yard and that Calderon feared for his safety. According to the complaint, Koenig and Freeman did nothing to prevent the anticipated violence or protect him.

Calderon also alleged that the defendants failed to follow a settlement agreement in an earlier related proceeding. The court stated that the complaint did not allege Calderon was a member of that settlement class or a third-party beneficiary entitled to sue under the agreement. Instead, the court understood his allegations as asserting that the defendants failed to use authority under the agreement to remove prisoners who created disturbances or promoted disruptive behavior.

Screening and claim

Because a prisoner sued governmental officials, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said that pleadings filed by people without lawyers must be read liberally.

The court concluded that Calderon stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim that Koenig and Freeman failed to protect him from attacks by other inmates. The court relied on the rule that prison officials may violate the Eighth Amendment when they fail to take reasonable steps to address a known excessive risk to a prisoner’s safety. The court did not make a final determination that the defendants violated the Constitution or that Calderon was entitled to damages.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to mail the defendants notices, waiver-of-service forms, the complaint and attachments, and the order. The defendants were cautioned about the costs of refusing to waive service. Calderon was required to serve future communications on the defendants or their counsel.

The court authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. It stated that Calderon was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and complying with court orders. The court warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The defendants could file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order’s filing date. The order set deadlines for Calderon’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and explained that a failure to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against Calderon without a trial. The order did not grant or deny summary judgment; it established procedures for motions that could be filed later.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi signed the order on May 19, 2020.