Grajeda v. Koenig

Background

Santiago Grajeda, identified in the opinion as a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights committed by someone acting under state authority.

The court had previously screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or employees. In that earlier review, the court dismissed one claim for failure to state a claim, found one claim against one defendant cognizable, and dismissed the remaining claims with leave to amend. Grajeda then notified the court that he wanted to proceed on the one cognizable claim and remove all other claims and defendants.

Claim Allowed to Proceed

Grajeda alleged that, on September 19, 2019, Correctional Officer A. Stephens ordered him to undergo a clothed search and, during the search, touched his penis and tightly squeezed his scrotum, causing severe pain. He alleged that after he filed an administrative grievance accusing Stephens of violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act and sexual misconduct, Stephens searched him again on October 22, 2019. According to the complaint, Stephens reached inside his shorts and slapped his buttocks, striking the back of his scrotum and causing severe pain, then told him, “Write that up.”

The court determined that these allegations stated a cognizable claim based on the two non-emergency body searches. The opinion did not decide whether Grajeda ultimately would prevail on that claim.

Disposition and Next Steps

Judge Davila ordered that the action proceed solely on the sexual-misconduct claim against Stephens. The court dismissed all other claims and defendants from the action and directed the clerk to terminate C. Koenig, J. L. Gonzalez, and J. Marquez as defendants.

The court ordered service of the complaint and related documents on Stephens through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with service by the United States Marshals Service if necessary. It directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion—meaning a motion that could resolve the claim—within 91 days after the order was filed. The order also set deadlines for Grajeda’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, and stated that discovery could proceed under the federal rules.