Mendez v. Contreras

Background

Jovanny J. Mendez, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that six prison correctional officers—C. Contreras, J. Taylor, J. Evans, A. Maylin, A. Shaad, and Sergeant L. Northup—used excessive force against him in January 2021.

Mendez alleged that Contreras threatened him while escorting him to a medical building on January 21, 2021. He alleged that, the next day, after he refused to take a COVID-19 test, Taylor and Evans grabbed him and slammed him to the ground; Contreras kneed him; Taylor struck his head against the ground and punched him repeatedly; and Evans and Shaad placed him in leg restraints and applied pressure to his body. Mendez alleged that Contreras, Taylor, Maylin, Evans, and Shaad applied bodyweight to his back. He alleged that Northup watched without trying to stop the other officers. Mendez also alleged retaliation because of recent assaults on staff and sought declaratory, compensatory, and punitive relief.

Screening standard and ruling

Because Mendez is a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, while still providing enough facts to give defendants fair notice of the claims.

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by someone acting under state authority. It concluded that, read liberally, Mendez had stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against all six defendants. A cognizable claim is one that is sufficient to proceed past the initial screening stage; this finding was not a final decision on the truth of the allegations or liability.

Orders

The court ordered service on all six defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the Clerk to send the complaint, the order, a service-waiver form, and a summons to the department, which was required to report which defendants would waive service. Defendants who waived service would receive additional time to answer; defendants served by the United States Marshals Service would generally have 21 days to answer.

The court set a later schedule for summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, responses, and replies. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and allowed defendants to take depositions of Mendez and other necessary witnesses confined in prison. The court also reminded Mendez that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. His request to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be decided in a separate written order.