Ware v. Lopez

Background

Reginald Ware, identified in the order as a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that Ware was granted permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees in a separate order.

Ware alleged that officials at the California Training Facility in Soledad, California violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. According to the complaint, in June 2020, Lieutenant J. Lopez, Sergeant J. Peffley, Sergeant H. Vera, Commander A. Villalobos, and unnamed defendants used excessive force while removing him from his cell at about 3:00 a.m. He also alleged that officials then kept him and about 200 other inmates in a dining hall without clothes, in tight wrist restraints, and without precautions against COVID-19. Ware further alleged that he and other Black inmates were singled out for this treatment and that Warden Koenig directed the operation.

Screening and Ruling

The court explained that federal law requires preliminary screening of prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. During screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court liberally construed Ware’s complaint and held that he stated cognizable claims against the defendants for violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court therefore ordered service on Warden Koenig, Lieutenant J. Lopez, Sergeant J. Peffley, Sergeant H. Vera, and Commander A. Villalobos through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshals Service procedures for any defendant who did not waive service.

Next Steps Ordered

The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Within 84 days after the order was filed, they were directed to file one comprehensive motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. Ware was given 28 days to oppose that motion, and the defendants were given 14 days after his opposition to file a reply.

The order also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directed Ware to serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel. It reminded him that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of any address change, and following court orders; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Effect of the Order

The order allowed the identified claims to proceed past initial screening and arranged for service of the complaint. It did not resolve the merits of whether the defendants violated Ware’s rights.