Smith v. Zavala

Background

Jason Smith, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. The court previously screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It found that some claims were legally sufficient and gave Smith the option either to amend the other claims or to proceed only on the claims the court had found cognizable. Smith notified the court that he wanted the other claims removed.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court allowed the following claims to proceed:

- An Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Correctional Officer M. Zavala. Smith alleged that Zavala grabbed his wrist, struck his upper back with her elbow, handcuffed him tightly, and repeatedly jerked his handcuffed hands while escorting him, even though he was not resisting. - First Amendment retaliation claims against Zavala, Lieutenant J. Reed, and Acting Chief Deputy Warden K. Mensing. Smith alleged that Zavala used force and issued a false Rules Violation Report because he had filed a lawsuit against her; that Reed found him guilty of a lesser charge because Smith had filed a grievance against Zavala; and that Mensing took retaliatory action in connection with Smith’s appeal of the matter.

At this stage, the court decided only that these allegations were sufficient to state claims. It did not decide the factual merits of those claims.

Claims Dismissed and Service

The court ordered that the action proceed on the excessive-force claim against Zavala and the retaliation claims against Zavala, Reed, and Mensing. It dismissed all other claims and defendants for failure to state a claim. The order did not add a separate “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to that dismissal.

The court ordered service on Mensing, Zavala, and Reed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process. It directed the department to report which defendants would waive service and provided for United States Marshals Service forms for defendants who did not waive service.

Next Steps Ordered by the Court

The defendants were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the remaining claims within 91 days after the order was filed. A summary-judgment motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and the court noted that summary judgment or qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed. Smith’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Smith of his responsibilities to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders.