Oliver v. Garcia

Background

Anthony W. Oliver, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officers at the Correctional Training Facility. He alleged that Correctional Officer R. Garcia and a correctional sergeant identified as “John Doe” retaliated against him for filing grievances.

Oliver alleged that he complained to Garcia on July 11, 2020, about Garcia's mask use. According to Oliver, Garcia confronted him on July 17 about filing a grievance. Oliver further alleged that Garcia reduced G-Wing telephone calls from 15 minutes to 5 minutes, told Oliver not to raise the issue again or Garcia would move him out of the unit, failed to return an inmate request form, and moved Oliver to different housing on August 27, 2020. Oliver claimed that the sergeant approved the move and conspired with Garcia to place him in a quarantine-restricted unit. He sought declaratory relief and damages.

Screening and Doe Defendant

Because Oliver was a prisoner seeking relief against government officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority. Construing Oliver's self-represented complaint liberally, the court found that his allegations were sufficient to state a retaliation claim.

The court also found that the identity of Sgt. John Doe appeared discoverable. It allowed Oliver an opportunity to identify that defendant through discovery and then seek permission to amend the complaint to substitute the defendant's name. Oliver was required to provide the Doe defendant's name by the deadline for the defendants' dispositive motion. The order states that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the claim against Sgt. John Doe without prejudice to Oliver filing a new action against him.

Orders and Disposition

The court ordered that Garcia be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic service program, with additional procedures for any defendant who did not waive service. The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order's filing date. Oliver's opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and the defendants' reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered.

The court denied Oliver's motion for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because he had already paid the filing fee. The order terminated Docket No. 2. This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on the merits of Oliver's retaliation claim.