Tate v. Delgadillo
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-09476
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Tate v. Delgadillo, Judge Davila allowed two constitutional claims to proceed, struck the others, and ordered service and a later dispositive motion.
Derek Tate and Correctional Officer D. Delgadillo; the case continues only on Tate's First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against Delgadillo, while all other claims and defendants were stricken.
What happened
In Tate v. Delgadillo, Derek Tate, a state prisoner, sued a correctional officer and two inmates under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that inmates attacked and harassed him after he filed prison appeals and that Officer D. Delgadillo helped them and failed to protect him.
The court found that Tate had stated a First Amendment retaliation claim and an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Delgadillo. Tate chose to proceed only on those claims, so the court struck all other claims and defendants from the complaint.
Judge Davila ordered that Delgadillo be served and directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion seeking to end the case within 91 days. The order did not decide whether Tate ultimately would win his claims.
The detailed version
- Tate v. Delgadillo · No. 5:20-cv-09476
- Edward Davila
- May 19, 2021
Background
Derek Tate, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer D. Delgadillo and two inmates. Tate alleged that he was attacked on July 10 and July 11, 2017, and that the attacks were motivated by his filing of inmate appeals against staff and inmates. He also alleged that he later refused to leave his cell and that, on August 9, 2017, two inmates taunted and harassed him outside his cell.
Tate alleged that Delgadillo spoke with the inmates from a control booth and that they later returned with a coffee canister containing urine and feces and threw its contents into Tate's cell. Tate said the incident caused chest pains and shortness of breath and required medical attention. He claimed that Delgadillo conspired with the inmates to retaliate against him for filing appeals, violating the First Amendment, and that Delgadillo violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him.
Screening and Claims
Because Tate sought relief from a government officer, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it must read pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally.
The court had previously dismissed the complaint with permission to amend concerning an equal-protection claim and had dismissed the claims against the two inmates. It had also told Tate that he could instead proceed on the First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims against Delgadillo and strike the other claims. Tate notified the court that he wanted to take that option.
The court found that Tate's allegations were sufficient to state a First Amendment retaliation claim and an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Delgadillo. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of either claim.
Order
The court ordered that the action proceed only on the First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims against Correctional Officer D. Delgadillo. It struck all other claims and defendants from the complaint.
The clerk was directed to arrange service on Delgadillo through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. The defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. The order also set deadlines for Tate's opposition and the defendants' reply, allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provided other case-management instructions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.