Revelez v. Allison

Background

Richard Revelez, identified as a state inmate, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kathleen Allison, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and unidentified defendants at San Quentin State Prison. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint with permission to amend. Revelez then filed a document that the court treated as an amendment rather than a superseding amended complaint.

Screening and claims

Because Revelez sought relief from government officials, the court screened the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had previously found a legally sufficient failure-to-protect claim against Sergeant D. Tomaso based on an alleged March 16, 2018 assault by other inmates after Revelez was placed in the general population despite his sensitive-needs-yard status. The court had found the allegations against Allison insufficient and had instructed Revelez to describe the conduct of the unidentified defendants.

Revelez’s amendment identified several people who were at San Quentin State Prison on March 15, 2018, including correctional officers who allegedly belittled him, a second-watch sergeant identified as “Whitney?” who allegedly refused to move him after he reported threats, and C. Yerton, who allegedly told him that staff at his destination had been trained to work with sensitive-needs-yard inmates.

The court explained that the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners. A failure-to-protect claim requires allegations showing both a sufficiently serious risk and that the official knew of and disregarded that risk. The court found the allegations sufficient to state a claim against Sergeant Whitney because he allegedly knew about threats against Revelez but refused to move him. The court found the allegations insufficient against the officers who allegedly belittled Revelez and against C. Yerton. It reasoned that belittling, without more, did not show knowledge of and disregard for an excessive safety risk, and that Yerton’s statement suggested he believed Revelez would be safe.

Rulings and case management

The court ordered that the action proceed on the failure-to-protect claim against Tomaso and Whitney. It directed service of the case on those defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program and directed the clerk to terminate Kathleen Allison because there were no cognizable claims against her.

The court construed Revelez’s request for legal assistance as a second motion to appoint counsel and denied it for lack of exceptional circumstances. The court directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order’s filing, or to notify the court if summary judgment could not resolve the case. It also set deadlines for Revelez’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and reminded Revelez that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could lead to dismissal. The order was signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on February 27, 2023.