Oliver v. Zavala

Background

Anthony Wayne Oliver, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer M. Zavala. Oliver alleged that Zavala took adverse actions against him because Oliver filed grievances and assisted another prisoner with filing grievances. Oliver also alleged that the retaliation had a chilling effect. Oliver separately moved to proceed without paying the filing fee; the court stated that motion would be addressed in a separate order.

Screening and Claim

Because Oliver sued a government officer while incarcerated, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that screening requires identifying claims that are legally sufficient and dismissing claims that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim. Applying that standard, the court found Oliver’s First Amendment retaliation allegations sufficient to state a cognizable claim under § 1983. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the retaliation claim.

Orders and Deadlines

The court ordered that Zavala be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshals Service involvement if service was not waived. Zavala was ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another motion seeking to resolve the case within 91 days after the order was filed, or to inform the court if summary judgment could not resolve the case. Oliver’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and Zavala’s reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that no hearing would be held unless later ordered. It also instructed Oliver to serve communications on Zavala or Zavala’s counsel, prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and seek extensions before deadlines with a showing of good cause.