Martinez v. Hatton

Background

Ronald F. Martinez, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had previously been housed. The court reviewed his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or government officer or employee.

Martinez alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by housing him from November 2017 through May 2018 in a cell with leaks in the ceiling and wall. He alleged that discolored, smelly, dirty, and contaminated rain or roof water leaked into and flooded the cell. He also alleged that he was housed without a working toilet from March 4 through March 14, 2018, and from June 14 through June 18, 2018.

Screening Ruling

The court concluded that, when read liberally, the allegations stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. A cognizable claim is one that has enough legally sufficient allegations to proceed beyond the initial screening stage. The court identified the claim against W. L. Muniz, Warden Hatton, Associate Warden Victor Solis, Chief Deputy Warden T. Foss, business services administrator K. Green, sergeant Cermeno, acting CSW P.L. Vasquez, sergeant Obodozie, sergeant Banger, correctional plant supervisor Jim Johnson, correctional plant manager II Sam Ochoa, building trades supervisor D. Mendez, building trades manager S. Sandoval, and carpenter III T. Vaughn.

The court dismissed Sergeant Cermino because it understood that name to be an alternate spelling for Sergeant Cermeno and therefore treated the two names as referring to the same person. The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint and the order on the remaining defendants without requiring Martinez to pay service fees.

Case-Management Orders

The court ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. Martinez’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held on the motion.

The court also explained the requirements for opposing summary judgment, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directed Martinez to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel. It instructed him to keep the court informed of address changes, comply with deadlines, and prosecute the case. The court warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.