Farias v. Lopez
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04167
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Farias v. Atchley, Judge Freeman dismissed non-cognizable claims with prejudice, allowed others to proceed, and ordered service and a dispositive motion.
Jorge Alberto Farias; the claims against Matthew Atchley, M. Cervantes, H. Clavijo, F. Soto, and J. Larraux were dismissed with prejudice, while C. Lopez, Jose Gutierrez-Aparicio, P. Barrera-Negrete, A. Cortina, and D. C. Ear remained defendants and were ordered to be served.
What happened
In Farias v. Atchley, Jorge Alberto Farias, a state prisoner representing himself, sued prison staff under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found possible claims involving excessive force, access to the courts, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Farias did not amend the claims the court had found deficient or notify the court that he wanted to proceed only on the surviving claims. The court therefore dismissed the non-cognizable claims and defendants with prejudice, while allowing the excessive-force, access-to-the-courts, and disability claims to continue.
Judge Freeman ordered service on five defendants and directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days. The order also set deadlines for Farias’s response and the defendants’ reply.
The detailed version
- Farias v. Lopez · No. 5:21-cv-04167
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 17, 2021
Background
Jorge Alberto Farias, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. Section 1983 provides a claim when a person acting under state law allegedly violates rights protected by federal law.
In an earlier screening order, the court found that the complaint stated potentially valid claims for excessive force against C. Lopez, Jose Gutierrez-Aparicio, and P. Barrera-Negrete; denial of access to the courts against A. Cortina and D. C. Ear; and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against Lopez, Gutierrez-Aparicio, Barrera-Negrete, Cortina, and Ear. The court dismissed the due-process claim for failure to state a claim and gave Farias 28 days to amend the deficient claims or notify the court that he wanted to proceed only on the claims that had survived screening.
Screening and Disposition
Farias filed no response by the deadline. Applying the required screening rules for prisoner suits against governmental entities or employees, the court dismissed with prejudice the Eighth Amendment claim based on denial of Farias’s asthma inhaler, all claims against Matthew Atchley, and the claims against M. Cervantes, H. Clavijo, and F. Soto. The court’s conclusion states that all other claims and defendants were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The action proceeds on the cognizable excessive-force, access-to-the-courts, and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The clerk was directed to terminate Matthew Atchley, H. Clavijo, F. Soto, M. Cervantes, and J. Larraux from the action. The court ordered service on C. Lopez, Jose Gutierrez-Aparicio, P. Barrera-Negrete, A. Cortina, and D. C. Ear through the prison system’s electronic service process, with United States Marshal service to follow for any defendant who did not waive service.
Next Steps Ordered by the Court
The remaining defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to rule based on the evidence when there is no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the result. Farias’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion, and any reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The court also authorized discovery and warned that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against Farias without a trial.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.