Clark v. Perez-Pantoja

Background

Chester Clark, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Sergeant I. Perez-Pantoja, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The opinion states that Clark was separately granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Screening standard

Because Clark is a prisoner suing a government officer, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also said that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read generously.

Allegations and claims

Clark alleged that, after numerous inappropriate clothed body searches, Perez-Pantoja conducted another clothed search on May 12, 2021, in a manner Clark described as sexual assault. Clark alleged that Perez-Pantoja squeezed his penis and caused him sharp pain.

Clark further alleged that he filed a grievance against Perez-Pantoja, and that Perez-Pantoja retaliated on May 22, 2021, by trashing Clark’s cell. After Clark filed another grievance, Clark alleged that Perez-Pantoja retaliated again on August 27, 2021, by placing him in a holding cage and fabricating a Rules Violation Report.

The court concluded that, when read generously, the complaint stated claims under the First and Eighth Amendments against Perez-Pantoja.

Order

The court ordered that I. Perez-Pantoja be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The order described procedures for determining whether Perez-Pantoja would waive service and, if not, for service by the United States Marshals Service.

The court also ordered that, no later than 60 days after service, the defendant must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or inform the court if the case could not be resolved through such a motion. Clark would have 30 days to oppose any such motion, and the defendant would have 14 days after the opposition to file a reply. The order allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warned Clark that failing to prosecute the case or follow court orders could result in dismissal.

This was an order allowing the case to proceed past initial screening; it did not decide the ultimate truth of Clark’s allegations or the defendant’s liability.