Walker v. Guzman
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-00904
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Walker v. Guzman, Judge Davila dismissed some claims without prejudice, kept others, denied reconsideration, and ordered defendants to respond.
Jeffrey Walker’s lawsuit was narrowed: the listed Claim One and deficient Claim Two claims were dismissed without prejudice, while the specified Claim Two claims against Guzman, Tracy, Ng, Gomez, Taylor, Malaspeina, and Huerrera remained. The court denied Walker’s reconsideration request and ordered the remaining defendants to file a dispositive motion or notice.
What happened
In Walker v. Guzman, Jeffrey Walker, a civil detainee representing himself, sued officers at San Francisco County Jail #2 under a federal civil-rights law. The court had found claims in his amended complaint that could proceed but required him to choose between two groups of claims.
Walker chose to pursue only the claims in Claim Two and to dismiss the rest. The court dismissed the other claims without prejudice, meaning they were not permanently barred by that dismissal. The claims left in the case involve alleged deliberate indifference, retaliation, and retaliation and unreasonable search and seizure related to a cell search and confiscated property.
The court also denied Walker’s request to reconsider its earlier denial of a temporary injunction. Judge Edward J. Davila directed the remaining defendants to receive the lawsuit and file a motion for summary judgment or another case-ending motion within 91 days.
The detailed version
- Walker v. Guzman · No. 5:22-cv-00904
- Edward Davila
- Nov. 4, 2022
Background
Jeffrey Walker, identified as a civil detainee, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. He sued officers at San Francisco County Jail #2, where the opinion says he was confined. The court had previously found that his amended complaint stated some legally cognizable claims but improperly joined claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20(a). The court directed Walker to choose whether to proceed with Claim One or Claim Two.
Walker notified the court that he wanted to proceed only with the cognizable claims under Claim Two and dismiss all other claims from the action.
Claims Dismissed
The court dismissed without prejudice the following claims:
- Under Claim One, an excessive-force claim against Officer Osha and a deliberate-indifference claim against Officers Osha and Tracy based on the January 27, 2022 incident. - Under Claim Two, an access-to-courts claim against Officers Guzman and Gomez; a retaliation claim against Officers Tracy and Garcia; medical claims against Doe defendants; and supervisor-liability claims against Chief Paulson and Sheriff Miaamoto.
“Without prejudice” means the order did not state that these claims were permanently barred from being brought again. The Clerk was directed to terminate the defendants whose claims had been dismissed, including Officer Osha, Officer Fields, Officer Deering, Chief Kevin Paulson, and Sheriff Miaamoto.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court identified these Claim Two allegations as cognizable and allowed them to remain in the action:
- A Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Defendants Guzman, Tracy, Ng, Gomez, and Taylor.
- A retaliation claim against Defendant Guzman based on allegedly not allowing Walker to leave his cell to make calls.
- Retaliation and unreasonable-search-and-seizure claims against Defendants Malaspeina, Huerrera, Ng, and Gomez concerning the cell search and confiscation of property.
The Clerk was directed to send the remaining defendants copies of the lawsuit and related service documents through the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department’s Office of Chief Legal Counsel.
Request for Reconsideration
Walker also sought reconsideration of the court’s earlier denial of his motion for a temporary injunction. The court explained that a party must first obtain permission to file a pre-judgment reconsideration motion under the local rules and must identify a qualifying change in facts or law, newly emerged material facts or a change in law, or a material fact the court previously failed to consider. Walker did not first seek permission and, even treating his filing as a request for permission, did not satisfy any of those requirements. The court therefore denied the motion.
Next Steps Ordered
The court ordered the defendants, no later than 91 days after the order was filed, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing the remaining claims. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to decide the claims without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that matters to the outcome. The court stated that summary judgment and qualified immunity could not be granted if material facts were disputed.
Walker was given 28 days after the defendants filed their motion to file an opposition, and the defendants were given 14 days after that opposition to file a reply. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one. It also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Walker that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, updating his address, and complying with court orders.
Disposition
The court partially dismissed the action without prejudice by dismissing the claims Walker chose not to pursue, retained the listed Claim Two allegations, denied Walker’s reconsideration motion, and directed further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.