Crawford v. Bangar
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-06286
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Crawford v. Bangar, Judge Tigar allowed Crawford’s medical-care and retaliation claims to proceed after prisoner-complaint screening.
Darryl Pierre Crawford’s claims may proceed against Cortes-Garcia, Machua, and Bangar. The order also directs those defendants to respond through service and sets the case’s initial litigation deadlines.
What happened
In Crawford v. Bangar, Darryl Pierre Crawford, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a self-represented civil-rights lawsuit under federal law. He alleged that correctional officials Cortes-Garcia, Machua, and Bangar failed to release him to eat immediately after insulin injections, despite his doctor’s instructions.
Crawford also alleged that Cortes-Garcia retaliated against him for filing grievances by having him moved against his will. After screening the complaint, the court found a potentially valid claim concerning inadequate medical care against Cortes-Garcia, Machua, and Bangar, and a potentially valid retaliation claim against Cortes-Garcia.
Judge Tigar ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint on the defendants and set deadlines for dispositive motions, responses, and replies. The order allowed the case to proceed but did not decide whether Crawford will ultimately win.
The detailed version
- Crawford v. Bangar · No. 4:20-cv-06286
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Darryl Pierre Crawford, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in a separate order. The complaint was reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a federal court to screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because they seek money from an immune defendant.
Claims
Crawford alleged that correctional officials Cortes-Garcia, Machua, and Bangar were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Specifically, he alleged that in November 2019 they failed to ensure that he was released to eat immediately after receiving insulin injections, as his doctor required.
Crawford also alleged that Cortes-Garcia retaliated against him for filing grievances about the failure to release him to eat by having him moved against his will. The court treated these allegations liberally because Crawford was representing himself.
Ruling and case status
The court found that the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Cortes-Garcia, Machua, and Bangar, and a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Cortes-Garcia. A cognizable claim is one that may proceed past the initial screening stage; this finding did not resolve the ultimate merits of the claims.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint and the order on Cortes-Garcia, Machua, and Bangar without requiring advance payment of service fees. The court directed 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 summary judgment could not resolve the case. Crawford’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Crawford to keep the court informed of address changes and follow the case deadlines.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.