Seti v. Robertson
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-00289
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Seti v. Robertson, Judge Corley granted amendment, dismissed some claims, and allowed an Eighth Amendment strip-search claim to proceed.
Ta Seti, Pelican Bay State Prison, Warden Jim Robertson, Sergeant Silva, the newly added Pelican Bay State Prison officials, and the unnamed “John Does” plaintiffs. The Eighth Amendment claim against the named defendants proceeds, while the claims against Pelican Bay State Prison and by the “John Does” are dismissed.
What happened
In Seti v. Robertson, Ta Seti, a California prisoner without a lawyer, sued Pelican Bay State Prison officials under a federal civil-rights law. He sought to add seven prison employees and challenge policies involving repeated strip searches and exposed prison toilets.
The court allowed the amended complaint, dismissed the claims against Pelican Bay State Prison and the claims brought by the “John Does,” and allowed the Eighth Amendment claim against the remaining named defendants to proceed. The court also ordered service on the newly added defendants and set deadlines for future dispositive motions, such as summary judgment.
Judge Corley ruled that the allegations, read liberally, were sufficient at the initial prisoner-complaint screening stage to permit the strip-search claim to continue. The order did not decide whether Ta Seti will ultimately win that claim.
The detailed version
- Seti v. Robertson · No. 3:23-cv-00289
- Jacquelyn Corley
- May 10, 2023
Background
Ta Seti, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison, Warden Jim Robertson, Sergeant Silva, and unnamed prison officials. The court had previously dismissed the claims against Pelican Bay State Prison and the “John Doe” plaintiffs, while allowing an Eighth Amendment claim against Robertson and Silva to proceed.
Seti moved for permission to file an amended complaint. The proposed amendment added seven Pelican Bay State Prison employees as defendants but otherwise repeated the allegations in the original complaint. Seti alleged that Robertson, Silva, and the newly added officials designed, supervised, or implemented prison practices involving repeated exposure of prisoners’ genitals and anuses during strip searches in the presence of other prisoners and officials of a different gender. He also alleged that privacy walls had been removed from inmate toilet areas and that these practices amounted to sexual harassment and increased the risk of sexual harassment and assault among prisoners.
Court’s analysis
Because more than 21 days had passed after service, Seti needed the opposing parties’ consent or the court’s permission to amend. The court found that the proposed complaint repeated claims it had already dismissed, but decided to allow the amendment in the interests of justice, considering that Seti was proceeding without a lawyer. The court then screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner lawsuits and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court dismissed the claims against Pelican Bay State Prison and the claims brought by the “John Does,” relying on its earlier explanation that those claims could not support relief. In contrast, the court held that the Eighth Amendment claim challenging the strip-search policy and related practices was capable of judicial review and determination. The court said that, when read liberally, the allegations against Robertson, Silva, and the seven added officials sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment violation. The court also concluded that the officials could be sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief seeking to stop the alleged policy and practices.
Order
The court granted leave to file the proposed amended complaint and made it the operative complaint, replacing the original complaint. The court dismissed the claims against Pelican Bay State Prison and by “John Does 1-100.” The Eighth Amendment claim against Robertson, Silva, and the added defendants was allowed to proceed. The court ordered service of the new defendants through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program, with United States Marshal service to follow for any defendant who did not waive service.
The court also set a schedule for dispositive motions. Defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by August 1, 2023; Seti’s opposition was due August 29, 2023; and any reply was due September 12, 2023. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the Eighth Amendment claim.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.