Moore v. Flores

Background

Ryan T. Moore’s amended complaint alleges that, on July 21, 2022, a San Quentin State Prison correctional officer named Flores listened to Moore’s video visit with his attorney and discouraged Moore from having additional video visits. The court previously determined that these allegations arguably stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving Moore’s meaningful access to the courts. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for certain violations of federal rights by state officials.

The court initially attempted to serve Correctional Officer Flores through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program. The department reported that it could not identify the correct officer because more than one correctional officer named Flores appeared to work at the prison. The court then directed Moore to provide additional identifying information. Moore responded that the officer’s name or initial was “E. Flores.”

Ruling

The court found good cause to order service on “Correctional Officer E. Flores at SQSP.” The clerk was directed to send the amended complaint, the earlier service order, this second service order, the summons, and related forms to the department for electronic service. The order also explains procedures for obtaining a waiver of service and for using the United States Marshals Service if the defendant does not waive service or cannot be reached.

The court ordered defendants to serve and file a summary-judgment motion or another motion that could resolve the case within 90 days after service of the order on the department. Any summary-judgment motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, include adequate factual documentation and relevant records, and include a notice explaining what Moore must do to oppose it. Moore must file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days after the motion is served, and defendants must file any reply within 14 days after the opposition. The motion will be considered submitted when the reply is due unless the court later orders a hearing.

The court also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order. It required Moore to serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court and the parties informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. The order states that failure to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).

What the Order Did Not Decide

This order concerns identifying and serving the defendant and managing the next steps in the case. It did not decide whether Moore proved that E. Flores violated his right of meaningful access to the courts.