Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2023

Montes v. Miller

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:22-cv-07229
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
5
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Montes v. Miller, Judge Tigar screened Giovanni Montes’s complaint and found a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Miller, allowing the case to proceed.

Who this affects

Giovanni Montes may continue pursuing his Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Sonoma County Jail Sergeant Miller. Miller must be served and respond under the schedule set by the court.

What happened

In Montes v. Miller, Giovanni Montes, who is representing himself, alleged that Sonoma County Jail Sergeant Miller threw him to the ground and hit his head while he was having a seizure during booking. Montes also alleged that he was placed in a filthy holding cell.

The court found that the allegations about Miller’s use of force stated a legally recognized claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. It ordered that Miller be formally served with the complaint and set deadlines for the next stages of the case, including a possible request for judgment without a trial.

Judge Tigar did not enter a final judgment on the claim. The case will proceed under the schedule in the order, including possible discovery and a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could resolve the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Montes v. Miller · No. 4:22-cv-07229
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Jan. 27, 2023

Background

Giovanni Montes filed a self-represented lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, on July 30, 2022, he suffered a seizure while being booked into Sonoma County Jail. According to the complaint, Sonoma County Jail Sergeant Miller threw Montes to the ground, hit him in the head with his hands while he was lying face-down, and verbally abused him. Montes also alleged that he was placed in a holding cell with urine on the floor and that these events caused pain in his back, head, and neck.

Screening decision

Because Montes is a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental officer, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court found that, read liberally, Montes’s allegations that Miller threw him down during a seizure and struck him while he was face-down stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to issue and serve the summons, complaint, attachments, and order on Miller. It also set deadlines requiring Miller to file and serve a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order, unless Miller first informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Montes’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and Miller’s reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. No hearing would be held on the motion.

The order allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Montes to serve copies of his court filings on Miller or Miller’s counsel. It also stated that Montes must prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The court did not issue a final judgment on the claim; this was an initial screening and service order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.