Golson v. Narvaez

Background

Jamar Brandon Golson’s second amended complaint alleged two groups of claims under the Eighth Amendment: excessive force and inadequate medical care. He alleged that J. Navarez used excessive force on April 23, 2017, with guards Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda joining in the conduct. He also alleged that R. Erguiza, K. Kumar, and Darrin Bright provided inadequate medical care or interfered with his receiving care.

The court applied the required preliminary screening for a prisoner’s complaint against government employees. It found the excessive-force claims against Navarez, Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda cognizable, meaning legally sufficient to proceed when liberally interpreted. It also found the medical-care claims against Erguiza, Kumar, and Bright cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority.

Rulings on pending motions

The court granted Golson’s motion to amend his complaint and stated that it would entertain no further amended complaints. It denied Golson’s motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice, allowing him to file a cross-motion for summary judgment when the defendants file their motion. The court also denied Golson’s motion for appointment of counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances; the court found that his filings were clear and that the case did not present complex legal issues.

Service and next steps

The court ordered service of the operative complaint and attachments on Navarez, Alvarado, Akins, Aranda, Erguiza, Kumar, and Bright. It directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report which defendants would waive service and directed the clerk to arrange service for any defendants who did not waive it.

The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims by March 13, 2023. If they sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court directed them to raise that issue in a summary-judgment motion. Golson’s opposition would be due 45 days after the defendants’ motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 15 days after his opposition. Judge William H. Orrick also directed that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Golson of his duty to prosecute the case and keep the court informed of any address change.