Ojeda v. Sandoval
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-07479
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In Ojeda v. Sandoval, Judge Chen granted amendment and ordered service, allowing excessive-force, medical-needs, and due-process claims to proceed.
Manuel Ojeda and the eight correctional-officer defendants named for service: C. Sandoval, E. Rivera-Rangel, Y. Lee, K. Story, A. Maylin, A. Schaad, T. Wood, and Lieutenant Frisk.
What happened
In Ojeda v. Sandoval, Manuel Ojeda, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued under a federal civil-rights law over an incident at Pelican Bay State Prison. The court had dismissed his original complaint but allowed him to amend it. Judge Chen granted Ojeda’s motion to amend, although the court said the motion was unnecessary because leave to amend had already been granted.
The court found that the amended complaint stated legally sufficient claims for excessive force against five correctional officers and for failing to provide needed medical care against seven officers. It also found sufficient due-process allegations concerning disciplinary proceedings against Lieutenant Frisk and Officer Sandoval, based mainly on Ojeda’s claimed 29-month segregation term and loss of property. The court did not decide whether Ojeda would ultimately win, and it noted possible later problems involving his lost good-time credits and the nature of his sentence.
The court ordered the named defendants to be served and to respond, and it set deadlines for possible dispositive motions and later briefing. Judge Edward M. Chen also authorized discovery under the ordinary federal rules and warned Ojeda about responding to any summary-judgment motion. The order disposed of the motion to amend, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ojeda v. Sandoval · No. 3:21-cv-07479
- Edward Chen
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
Manuel Ojeda, a prisoner at High Desert State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison, where he had previously been incarcerated. The court screened his original complaint under the prisoner-screening statute and dismissed it while allowing him to amend.
Ojeda filed a motion for leave to amend and attached a First Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion, while explaining that the motion was unnecessary because the earlier screening order had already given him permission to amend. The court then reviewed the amended complaint.
Claims Found Cognizable
The court found that Ojeda again stated an excessive-force claim against Correctional Officers C. Sandoval, E. Rivera-Rangel, Y. Lee, K. Story, and A. Maylin.
The amended complaint also stated a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against those five officers and Correctional Officers A. Schaad and T. Wood. Ojeda identified Schaad and Wood as the two officers who, according to his allegations, took him to a holding cell but did not seek medical care for hours despite his request and apparent injuries.
The court further found that Ojeda stated a due-process claim arising from a disciplinary proceeding. Ojeda alleged that he received a 29-month segregation sentence, lost privileges, lost 360 days of good-time credits, and was required to give the prison property worth $200. The court concluded that the segregation term and forced transfer of property could constitute a deprivation of “real substance,” which is necessary at this stage for a due-process claim.
The court did not dismiss any part of the due-process claim at this point. It cautioned, however, that the loss of privileges might not qualify as a sufficiently serious deprivation. It also explained that the effect of the lost good-time credits depended on the type of sentence Ojeda was serving. If the claim were barred by the rule discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, it might later need to be dismissed without prejudice to refiling after the disciplinary finding was expunged.
As to Lieutenant Frisk, who conducted the disciplinary hearing, the court found that Ojeda sufficiently alleged a failure to provide the procedural protections required by Wolff. As to Officer Sandoval, the court found that Ojeda had identified the statements in Sandoval’s disciplinary report that he claimed were false, explained how they differed from the truth, and pointed to supporting evidence. The court cautioned that Sandoval’s claim could fail if Frisk established that the required disciplinary procedures were provided.
Order
The court ordered that the excessive-force, medical-needs, and due-process claims be served on C. Sandoval, E. Rivera-Rangel, Y. Lee, K. Story, A. Maylin, A. Schaad, T. Wood, and Lieutenant Frisk. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshal service for defendants who did not waive service.
The court set a deadline of June 2, 2023, for defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, with later deadlines for Ojeda’s opposition and defendants’ reply. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warned Ojeda that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order disposed of Docket No. 10.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.