Hernandez v. I.S.U.

Background

Joseph Hernandez, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison, where he had previously been housed. During screening, the court found that the complaint combined two separate groups of claims and therefore violated the federal rule governing joinder of defendants and claims.

The first group consisted of a due-process claim against correctional officers Kaufman, McBride, Townsend, and Bradbury, along with a First Amendment retaliation claim against correctional officer Lacy. The second group consisted of an Eighth Amendment claim against Turnell and Ramsey. The court had also identified other deficiencies and gave Hernandez the choice of selecting one group of claims or filing an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies.

Hernandez chose to proceed with the due-process claim against Kaufman, McBride, Townsend, and Bradbury and the First Amendment retaliation claim against Lacy.

Rulings

The court ordered service of the operative complaint and related documents on Pelican Bay State Prison Officer Bradbury and Lieutenant Lacy through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order established procedures for obtaining waivers of service and arranging service by the United States Marshals Service for any defendant who did not waive service.

The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim against Turnell and Ramsey for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2)'s joinder requirements. The dismissal was without prejudice to Hernandez pursuing those claims in a separate action. The court also dismissed Turnell and Ramsey from this action because no claims against them remained in it.

The order set a schedule for defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, for Hernandez to respond, and for defendants to reply. It explained that summary judgment can end a case when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result, and it required a required notice to accompany any summary-judgment motion. The court authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required Hernandez to serve copies of his court filings on defense counsel or the defendants before counsel was designated, and reminded him to prosecute the case, update his address, and comply with court deadlines.

Effect of the Order

This order continued the selected claims in this action, directed service on Bradbury and Lacy, and removed the Eighth Amendment claims against Turnell and Ramsey from this case. The order does not state a decision on the merits of whether any remaining claim will succeed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on July 25, 2022.