Cruz v. Richards

Background

Robert Jesse Cruz, proceeding without a lawyer, sued J. Richards and other defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes the defendants as officials at Pelican Bay State Prison and the California Correctional Health Care Services. Cruz alleged that the Warden and other prison officials failed to provide him with adequate food that would not provoke an allergic reaction and failed to provide a therapeutic boot prescribed by his surgeon.

Initial Review

The court conducted the required initial review of Cruz’s complaint. At this stage, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority.

The court liberally construed Cruz’s allegations and held that they stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment. A “cognizable” claim is one the court allows to proceed because, accepting the alleged facts as true at this stage, it could support legal relief. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of the claim.

Order

The court ordered service of the complaint and the order on the defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with service by the United States Marshals Service for defendants who did not waive service.

The defendants were directed to file a motion for summary judgment or another motion seeking to resolve the claim by July 16, 2021. If they argued that Cruz had not exhausted available prison grievance procedures, the court directed them to raise that issue through a summary-judgment motion. The order also set deadlines for Cruz’s opposition and required defendants to provide the notices explaining how a prisoner must respond to a summary-judgment motion.

The order permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reminded Cruz that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and keeping the court informed of address changes, and stated that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered the order on April 13, 2021.