Lucus v. Koenig

Background

Jesse Lucus, a former California inmate who had been paroled, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials and employees at the Correctional Training Facility. The court had previously dismissed his amended complaint with leave to amend certain deficient claims, while explaining that the case could instead proceed on claims already found legally sufficient. Lucus did not file a second amended complaint within the allowed time.

The allegations that remained relevant to the order concerned a plan to move inmates from a Sensitive Needs Yard to general population at a non-designated programming facility. Lucus alleged that he was moved to Facility D, was threatened with disciplinary consequences if he refused the move, and was attacked by other inmates the next day. He alleged that Sergeant Stephens and Warden Craig Koenig failed to protect him. He also alleged that John Doe 1 used pepper spray during the disturbance and that Jane Doe and John Doe 4 denied him showers and clean clothing after the incident.

Screening and claims allowed to proceed

Because the action was brought by a prisoner against governmental personnel, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because a defendant is immune from monetary relief. The court stated that the complaint presented cognizable, meaning legally sufficient at the screening stage, claims against Sergeant Stephens and Warden Craig Koenig for failure to protect from other inmates; against John Doe 1 for excessive force; and against Jane Doe and John Doe 4 for Eighth Amendment violations based on denial of showers.

The court explained that unidentified defendants may be pursued when their identities cannot reasonably be known before filing. It directed Lucus to use discovery to learn the names of John Doe 1, Jane Doe, and John Doe 4 and then seek to add and serve them. Failure to provide their names by the dispositive-motion deadline would result in dismissal of those defendants without prejudice to filing a new action against them.

Dismissed claims and defendants

Because Lucus did not file a second amended complaint, the court ordered that the remaining claims and defendants be stricken from the amended complaint. It dismissed the claims against Kathleen Allison, Laura Mendez, Julie Garry, Ralph Diaz, Keith Henderson, Osborn, Lieutenant Galvan, and Captain Chamberlain with prejudice and without further leave to amend. The clerk was directed to terminate those defendants and to change “Warden Stephens” to “Sgt. Stephens” on the docket.

Case management orders

The clerk was directed to send the lawsuit and service-waiver materials to Sergeant Stephens and Warden Craig Koenig at the Correctional Training Facility. The court ordered the defendants, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the claims found cognizable. The order set deadlines for Lucus’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and stated that Lucus’s failure to oppose a summary-judgment motion could be treated as consent to judgment against him. The order also reminded Lucus to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court deadlines.