Johnson v. Rosalez

Background

Paul David Johnson, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The opinion states that the claims concerned alleged constitutional violations at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court separately granted Johnson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening Standard

Because Johnson is a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court conducted an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, 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 it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible rather than merely stating labels or conclusions.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found a legally sufficient claim against Sergeant A. Cuevas. Johnson alleged that Cuevas sexually harassed him and wrote him up for rule violations in retaliation for Johnson’s prior lawsuits. The court concluded that, when read liberally, these allegations stated a claim that Cuevas violated Johnson’s First Amendment rights.

Claims Dismissed

Johnson also alleged that prison officials at San Quentin had not taken adequate precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the prison. Although he named several other defendants, the court said he did not allege what those defendants did or failed to do, or how they caused the unsafe conditions or another constitutional violation. The court therefore dismissed the claims against R. Rosalez, S. Stribling, L. Peters, D. Campbell, A. Maxwell, J. Arnold, and R. Broomfield with leave to amend.

Order and Next Steps

The court ordered that Defendant A. Cuevas be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. The court directed the remaining defendant to file an answer and set a schedule for a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion. The court also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Johnson may file an amended complaint within 28 days after the order’s filing date. The amended complaint must use the required caption and case number and state all claims he wants to pursue, including the claim against Cuevas. The order states that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, so Johnson may not incorporate the original complaint by reference. If he does not amend within the designated time and comply with the order, the claims against the dismissed defendants will be dismissed.