Bustamonte v. Castillon

Background

Israel Bustamonte, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action concerning an incident at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that Correctional Officer T. Castillon deliberately shot him in the face with a rubber bullet during a prison riot or melee on September 28, 2021, even though Bustamonte was complying with an order to get down and was not threatening anyone.

Bustamonte also alleged that medical staff failed to provide reasonable care after the shooting. He claimed that he suffered head injuries, fractures, a laceration, severe pain, vomiting, dizziness, disorientation, vision and hearing problems, and difficulty eating. He alleged that Nurses F. Ssempewa, Phuc Le, F. Montegrande, and L. Muriith, and Dr. Michael Moller did not take reasonable steps to address his condition, including promptly arranging surgery and providing a soft-food diet. The conclusion lists the doctor’s name as “Michael Moeller,” while the body identifies him as “Michael Moller.”

The court had previously screened the complaint and found deficiencies in the medical claim against defendants Bermudez and Johnson, the request for injunctive relief, and the basis for suing the defendants. Bustamonte amended his complaint. The amended complaint no longer named Bermudez or Johnson, stated that the defendants were sued individually, and did not request injunctive relief.

Screening and claims allowed to proceed

Because Bustamonte sought relief from government employees, the court screened the amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statutes. Screening determines whether a prisoner’s complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. The court was required to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that failed those requirements.

The court concluded that the allegations against Castillon were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The relevant question at this stage was whether the force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The court found that Bustamonte’s allegation that Castillon deliberately shot him in the face while he was complying with an order and presenting no threat was sufficient when liberally construed.

The court also concluded that Bustamonte stated Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Ssempewa, Le, Montegrande, Muriith, and Dr. Michael Moller. Deliberate indifference requires a serious medical need and a defendant’s knowing failure to take reasonable steps to address a substantial risk of serious harm. The court found the allegations sufficient based on the defendants’ alleged knowledge of Bustamonte’s severe pain and inability to eat and their alleged failure to take reasonable steps, including promptly treating his injuries with surgery.

Orders and case schedule

The court ordered that the amended complaint be served on Castillon, Ssempewa, Le, Montegrande, Muriith, and Dr. Michael Moeller. It directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation electronic-service program and provided procedures for service by the United States Marshals Service if a defendant did not waive service.

The order permits discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without another court order. It gives defendants 91 days from the filing date of the order to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion concerning the claims found sufficient to proceed. It sets deadlines for Bustamonte’s opposition and defendants’ reply, and it states that no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one. The court also required Bustamonte to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and prosecute the case; failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The clerk was directed to terminate R.N. C. Bermudez, R.N. Lamphuc, and R.N. K Johnson because they were not named in the amended complaint. This was an order allowing the identified claims to proceed through service and further litigation, not a final decision on the truth of the allegations or the defendants’ liability.