Vernacchio v. Davis
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-07171
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Vernacchio v. Davis, Judge Illston granted an amendment and service, explained credit claims belong in custody petitions, and extended dispositive-motion deadlines.
John F. Vernacchio, the three defendants who had already been served, and the two newly identified defendants, Y. Samara and B. Martin.
What happened
In Vernacchio v. Davis, John F. Vernacchio had alleged that prison officials terminated his prison job because of his age, violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. An earlier order had found claims against five defendants and ordered service on three of them.
The court granted Vernacchio’s request to add paragraphs and identify two previously unnamed defendants as associate warden Y. Samara and CCII supervisor B. Martin. The court said the added claim about losing “milestone” time credits was not a separate civil-rights claim because success could lead to earlier release from prison or parole; that claim would have to be brought in a petition challenging custody under federal law instead.
Judge Illston also granted the defendants’ request for a 60-day extension of the deadline for a potentially case-ending motion. The court ordered service of the case documents on Samara and Martin without prepayment of fees and made the new briefing schedule apply to all five defendants.
The detailed version
- Vernacchio v. Davis · No. 3:19-cv-07171
- Susan Illston
- May 19, 2020
Background
An earlier order determined that John F. Vernacchio’s complaint stated claims against five defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Those claims were based on his allegations that he was terminated from his prison job because of his age. Service had been ordered on three defendants, while Vernacchio was directed to provide the true names of two defendants identified as “Doe” defendants.
Amendment and newly identified defendants
Vernacchio moved to add paragraphs to his existing complaint. The court treated the material in Docket No. 12 as an amendment rather than as a replacement complaint. The amendment identified the two Doe defendants as associate warden Y. Samara and CCII supervisor B. Martin and added a claim concerning the loss of an opportunity to earn “milestone” time credits through prison employment.
The court granted the motion to amend. It stated that the amended complaint did not state a separate claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for exclusion from a program that could provide milestone credits. The court explained that a prisoner seeking relief that could affect the legality or duration of custody, including earlier release from prison or parole, must pursue that claim through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than through a § 1983 complaint, if the claim is pursued in federal court.
Extension of deadlines
The defendants requested a 60-day extension of the deadline to file and serve a dispositive motion, meaning a motion that could resolve the case or a claim. After considering the request and supporting declaration, the court granted it. The new schedule required defendants to file and serve their motion by August 14, 2020, required Vernacchio to respond by the applicable deadline stated in the order, and required defendants to file any reply by September 25, 2020.
Service and disposition
The court directed the clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshal to serve Samara and Martin, without prepayment of fees, with the complaint, amendment, earlier service order, and this order. The court stated that the dispositive-motion deadlines applied to Samara and Martin as well as to the three defendants who had already been served. The order did not expressly dismiss the milestone-credit claim; it stated that the claim was not a separate § 1983 claim and identified a custody challenge under § 2254 as the proper federal vehicle. Judge Susan Illston signed the order on May 19, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.