Gipson v. Ascencio

Background

Faitdon Gipson, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officers at San Quentin State Prison. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law.

Gipson alleged that on October 24, 2021, his cellmate violently assaulted him and caused serious injuries. He alleged that Correctional Officers T. Ascencio, E. Mora, and L. Dossman-Perez knew the cellmate was mentally disturbed and had violent tendencies when they placed the cellmate in Gipson’s cell. Gipson claimed that the officers were deliberately indifferent to the danger, violating the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from an attack or dangerous conditions.

Screening and Claims

Because Gipson is a prisoner seeking relief from government officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court identifies claims that are legally sufficient and dismisses claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court had previously found that Gipson’s Eighth Amendment claim against Ascencio, Mora, and Dossman-Perez was cognizable, meaning it was sufficient to proceed past screening.

The earlier screening order found no factual allegations against named Defendant Officer C. Casillas and directed Gipson either to file an amended complaint addressing that deficiency or to state that he wished to proceed only against the other defendants. Gipson did not respond by the deadline.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court ordered that the action proceed solely on the Eighth Amendment claim against Ascencio, Mora, and Dossman-Perez. It dismissed Defendant Carlos Casillas from the action because there were no cognizable claims against him and directed the clerk to terminate him from the case.

The court directed that the remaining defendants be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with United States Marshal service to follow for any defendant who did not waive service. The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed. Gipson’s opposition would be due 28 days after any such motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. Judge Edward J. Davila also stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warned that failure to follow court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.