Cortez v. Hart
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-06023
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Cortez v. Hart, Judge Davila dismissed all but Jason Cortez’s excessive-force claim without prejudice and ordered the case to continue against Ainsworth and Seavers.
Jason Cortez’s case continues only on his excessive-force claim against Lt. Jacob Ainsworth and Rachel Seavers. Cortez’s other claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the other defendants were terminated from the action. Ainsworth and Seavers must respond through the next dispositive-motion stage.
What happened
Cortez v. Hart is a civil-rights case brought by Jason Cortez, a pretrial detainee, without a lawyer against officers at the Santa Cruz County Jail under a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state officials.
The court had previously dismissed the complaint but allowed Cortez to amend it or proceed only with his excessive-force claim against Lt. Jacob Ainsworth and Rachel Seavers. Cortez chose to proceed with that claim. The court dismissed all other claims without prejudice and terminated the other defendants from the case.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered the Clerk to serve Ainsworth and Seavers and directed them to file a motion for summary judgment or another case-ending motion within 91 days. Cortez must respond within 28 days after any such motion, and the defendants may reply within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Cortez v. Hart · No. 5:22-cv-06023
- Edward Davila
- Apr. 18, 2023
Background
Jason Cortez, a pretrial detainee confined at the Santa Cruz County Jail, brought this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued officers at the jail. Section 1983 provides a claim for violating rights secured by the Constitution or federal law when the violation is committed by someone acting under state authority.
On March 27, 2023, the court dismissed Cortez’s complaint with permission to amend because several claims had deficiencies. The court also gave him the option to proceed only with the excessive-force claim it found legally cognizable against Lt. Jacob Ainsworth and Rachel Seavers. Cortez filed a notice choosing that option.
Court’s Decision
The court ordered that the action proceed solely on the excessive-force claim against Ainsworth and Seavers. It dismissed all other claims without prejudice and directed the Clerk to terminate all other defendants from the action. The order therefore screened the claims but did not decide whether Cortez ultimately can prove the excessive-force claim.
Further Proceedings
The Clerk was directed to send Ainsworth and Seavers the lawsuit materials and requests to waive formal service, and to send Cortez a copy of the order. Within 91 days after the order was filed, the defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claim, or notify the court if summary judgment cannot resolve the case. A motion for summary judgment asks the court to enter judgment based on the evidence without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact.
Cortez’s opposition is due 28 days after the defendants’ motion, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one. It also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Cortez that he must serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with deadlines and court orders.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.