Ronquillo v. CDCR

Background

Gabriel A. Ronquillo, identified as a state inmate incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the “CDCR Administration,” a prison chaplain, and prison officers. The court had dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. After the amendment deadline passed, the court dismissed the deficient claims and ordered the case to proceed on a failure-to-protect claim against an unidentified gunner. Ronquillo’s first amended complaint was filed later the same day, after that order had already been entered. The court vacated the earlier order and reviewed the amended complaint instead.

Claims and screening

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner lawsuits against governmental entities or employees and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. Under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state authority.

Ronquillo alleged that an inmate stabbed him 55 times on September 20, 2022, in Group Yard #1, while the duty gunner watched for more than one minute before intervening. He also alleged that, after recovering in a hospital, he was classified as a “walk alone inmate,” but his cell label was not changed despite his requests to Officer Carter. Ronquillo alleged that Father Chavira, Sgt. Geocamachi, a John Doe desk officer, and Officer Carter failed to take reasonable steps to protect him before a second attack on January 14, 2023, when another inmate stabbed him six times.

The court concluded that, liberally construing the pro se complaint, Ronquillo stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against the duty gunner based on the delayed intervention during the first attack. It also concluded that he stated a failure-to-protect claim against Father Chavira, Sgt. Geocamachi, the John Doe desk officer for the week of October 20, 2022, and Officer Carter based on allegations that they knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it.

Unidentified defendants and service

The court allowed Ronquillo to use discovery to identify “John Doe #1 On Duty Gunner” and “John Doe #2 Desk c/o week of Oct. 20, 2022.” It directed him to file a motion substituting their proper names within 56 days of the order. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against those unidentified defendants for failure to state a claim for relief.

The court directed service of the amended complaint on Father Manuel Chavira, Sgt. Geocamachi, and Correctional Officer Carter through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It also directed defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable within 91 days after the order was filed.

Pending motions and disposition

The court denied Ronquillo’s motion to compel discovery as premature because no defendant had yet been served. It denied his motion for a court order as moot in light of the order. The court vacated the March 7, 2024, “Order of Partial Dismissal and of Service,” denied both pending motions, directed service and discovery procedures, and set deadlines for potential dispositive motions and responses. This order screened the claims and permitted them to proceed; it did not decide whether Ronquillo will ultimately prevail on those claims.