Johnson v. Robertson
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-04803
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Johnson v. Robertson, Judge Chen allowed an excessive-force claim against three prison officers to proceed and ordered service.
The order allows Jeremiah Joseph Johnson's excessive-force claim to proceed against correctional sergeant M.A. Powers, correctional officer S.A. Maldonado, and correctional officer A.G. Maylin; it does not decide the defendants' ultimate liability.
What happened
In Johnson v. Robertson, Jeremiah Joseph Johnson, representing himself while imprisoned, amended his civil-rights complaint about conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison. The amended complaint continued to allege that three officers used excessive force on October 3, 2019.
The court found that the amended complaint stated a legally sufficient claim under a federal civil-rights law and the Eighth Amendment against M.A. Powers, S.A. Maldonado, and A.G. Maylin. Johnson omitted Love, Robertson, and Gutierrez from the amended complaint, and the case will proceed against the three remaining defendants.
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that the three defendants be served and set deadlines for possible motions that could end the case. This order allowed the claim to proceed but did not decide whether the defendants are ultimately liable.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Robertson · No. 3:20-cv-04803
- Edward Chen
- June 28, 2021
Background
Jeremiah Joseph Johnson filed this lawsuit without a lawyer while imprisoned, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of constitutional rights. He complained about conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison.
The court had previously reviewed Johnson's original complaint. It found that the complaint stated a legally sufficient excessive-force claim against Maldonado, Maylin, Love, and Powers, but did not state a claim concerning a strip search or against Robertson or Gutierrez. The court gave Johnson permission to amend the complaint to correct pleading deficiencies.
Johnson then filed an amended complaint. It repeated the excessive-force allegations against Powers, Maldonado, and Maylin; made no allegations against Love; included no allegations about a strip search; and deleted Robertson and Gutierrez as defendants.
Ruling and Case Status
The court held that, liberally construed, the amended complaint stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against correctional sergeant M.A. Powers, correctional officer S.A. Maldonado, and correctional officer A.G. Maylin for an Eighth Amendment violation based on alleged excessive force. The court stated that the action would proceed against those three defendants.
The court ordered service of the amended complaint and related documents through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic-service process. It also established procedures for service waivers and service by the United States Marshals Service if a defendant did not waive service.
The court set a briefing schedule requiring defendants to file any summary-judgment or other dispositive motion by August 12, 2021; Johnson to respond by September 14, 2021; and any reply by September 28, 2021. The order explained that summary judgment could end the case if there were no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the result, including if defendants showed that Johnson had not exhausted required administrative remedies. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the excessive-force claim.
Other Instructions
The court permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Johnson to send copies of filings to the defendants or their counsel, and instructed him to keep the court informed of address changes and comply with court orders. The court warned that failure to prosecute could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.