Washington v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

Tracye Benard Washington, a California inmate representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison and medical officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. Federal law required the court to screen the complaint because Washington sought relief from governmental defendants. In an earlier screening order, the court found some claims sufficient to proceed, dismissed some claims with permission to amend, and dismissed claims against several defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Washington did not file an amended complaint by the deadline.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a claim for relief:

- Washington’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the Rehabilitation Act against Salinas Valley State Prison; - his state-law elder-abuse claim; - his retaliation claims against Defendants Dominguez, Guijarro, and Tapia; - his due-process claim against Defendant Tapia; and - his supervisor-liability claim against Defendant Allen.

The clerk was directed to terminate Salinas Valley State Prison, Warden Trent Allen, Officer Dominguez, and Officer Tapia because no claims remained against them.

Claims Proceeding

The case was allowed to proceed on the claims the court had previously found cognizable: excessive-force claims against Defendants Guijarro and John Doe No. 3, identified as a lieutenant; deliberate-indifference claims concerning serious medical needs against Defendant Serrato and John Does Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8; and a supervisor-liability claim against Sgt. John Doe No. 6. A cognizable claim is one the court found sufficient to continue past the initial screening stage; the order did not decide whether Washington will ultimately prevail.

Service and Further Proceedings

The court ordered service on Officer Guijarro and Officer Serrato through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with service by the United States Marshals Service if necessary. Washington was given 56 days from the filing of the order to use discovery to learn the names of the John Doe defendants and file a motion to substitute their proper names. The order states that failure to do so will result in dismissal of the claims against those unknown defendants for failure to state a claim.

The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims within 91 days after the order was filed. Washington’s opposition would be due 28 days after any such motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also permitted discovery without another order authorizing it.