Johnson v. Meyer

Background

Joseph Jamaul Johnson, a prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court reviewed his second amended complaint under the statute requiring preliminary screening of prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities, officers, or employees.

Johnson alleged that, after arriving at Salinas Valley State Prison, an institutional classification committee decided to move him to the general population. Before that move, correctional sergeants A. Qyarzabal and J. Cermeno allegedly told him that he had an enemy in the destination facility. Johnson was nevertheless released into that facility and later sent to the yard. He alleged that four inmates attacked him while correctional officers M. Matias, R. Salgado, and M. Perez watched. He also alleged that a correctional officer in a gun tower fired one or two rounds at the attackers but hit Johnson in the face and arm, causing serious injuries.

Johnson alleged that he later received emergency treatment, was told he had an orbital-wall fracture, and underwent facial-bone surgery. He further alleged that Dr. S. Sawyer and registered nurse M. Villanueva failed to arrange recommended physical therapy and other medical treatment. He also asserted retaliation and state-law negligence claims.

Claims the Court Allowed to Proceed

The court held that the second amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety against Qyarzabal and Cermeno. The complaint alleged that they knew Johnson had an enemy in the destination facility but failed to prevent his release there.

The court also held that Johnson stated deliberate-indifference-to-safety claims against Matias, Perez, and Salgado based on the allegation that they stood by and watched while four inmates attacked him.

The court further held that Johnson stated Eighth Amendment medical-care claims against Sawyer and Villanueva. Those claims were based on allegations that the defendants failed to arrange physical therapy and needed medical treatment.

Claims the Court Dismissed or Found Insufficient

The court found no cognizable safety claim against ICC members Hatton, Solis, and Martines because Johnson did not allege that they knew he had an enemy or otherwise faced a substantial risk of harm. The court also found no safety claim against the two Doe officers who sent him to the yard because he did not allege facts showing that either officer knew about the enemy or another substantial risk. The court denied further leave to amend those claims because it found amendment would be futile.

The court found that Johnson had not stated an excessive-force claim against the officer who fired the rounds. Johnson did not allege facts plausibly showing that the officer fired to harm him rather than in a good-faith effort to stop the attack and restore order. The court allowed Johnson 60 days to amend the complaint if he had additional facts supporting an excessive-force claim and required him to provide the shooter’s true name if he pursued that claim.

The court dismissed the retaliation claim. Johnson alleged that defendants failed to protect him because he had filed a lawsuit against prison staff, but the court found that he provided only conclusory allegations and no specific facts showing retaliatory intent or explaining whether defendants knew about the lawsuit. The court denied further leave to amend that claim because it found amendment would be futile.

The court dismissed the state-law negligence claims because Johnson did not allege that he timely presented a claim to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board or filed the lawsuit within the required period after rejection. The court allowed him 60 days to amend those claims if he had presented the required claim and could allege the necessary facts.

Disposition and Case Management

The conclusion states that the second amended complaint asserted cognizable § 1983 claims against Qyarzabal, Cermeno, Matias, Salgado, Perez, Sawyer, and Villanueva for deliberate indifference to safety or medical needs. It states that all other claims and defendants were dismissed. The court directed the clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the surviving defendants without requiring advance payment of fees.

The court set a deadline of August 28, 2020, for defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion. Johnson’s opposition was due October 2, 2020, and any reply was due October 23, 2020. The court also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted Johnson’s request for copies of his second amended complaint and the docket sheet.