Washington v. Serrato
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-05832
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Washington v. Serrato, Judge Freeman struck non-cognizable claims, kept excessive-force and assault-conspiracy claims, and ordered service.
Tracye Benard Washington and defendants J. Serrato, E. Guijarro, B. Akin, and C. Diaz. The order removes some claims, allows the specified excessive-force and assault-conspiracy claims to proceed, and directs service and further litigation.
What happened
In Washington v. Serrato, Tracye Benard Washington, a California inmate representing himself, sued prison staff under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found some claims sufficient to proceed and allowed Washington to continue only on those claims.
The court struck Washington’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, his equal-protection claim, and his due-process claims against Diaz and Akin. The case will continue on excessive-force claims against Serrato, Guijarro, and Akin, and on a conspiracy-to-commit-assault claim against Serrato, Guijarro, Akin, and Diaz.
Judge Freeman ordered the listed defendants to be served and directed them to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the remaining claims. The order also set deadlines for Washington’s response and the defendants’ reply and allowed discovery.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Serrato · No. 5:22-cv-05832
- Beth Freeman
- May 3, 2023
Background
Tracye Benard Washington, identified as a California inmate, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, where Washington was formerly housed. The court had previously screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found some claims legally sufficient while dismissing other claims with permission to amend. It also dismissed claims against several defendants in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Washington notified the court of an intent to proceed only on the claims the court had found cognizable.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court stated that the complaint supported excessive-force claims against J. Serrato, E. Guijarro, and B. Akin. It also supported a claim alleging a conspiracy to commit assault against Serrato, Guijarro, Akin, and C. Diaz. The action proceeds on those claims.
Claims Stricken
The court ordered the following claims stricken from the complaint: the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claim against all defendants; the equal-protection claim against all defendants; and the due-process claims against Diaz and Akin. The opinion does not decide the merits of the claims that remain.
Service and Further Proceedings
The court directed service on Serrato, Guijarro, Akin, and Diaz through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the required facts are not genuinely disputed. The order also provided that Washington’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition, and discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It warned that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could be treated as consent to judgment against Washington.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.