Perez v. Macias
- Donna Ryu
- 5:24-cv-02725
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Perez v. Macias, Judge Ryu found the prisoner’s civil-rights claims sufficient to proceed, denied appointed counsel without prejudice, and referred the case to mediation.
Avaro Covarrubias Perez and the six named prison-official defendants are affected. Perez’s claims may proceed to service and mediation, but his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice and further proceedings were stayed after service.
What happened
In Perez v. Macias, Avaro Covarrubias Perez, a state prisoner, alleged that prison officials arranged a yard release that exposed him and other prisoners to an attack. He said other prisoners beat him and that correctional officers sprayed him with pepper spray instead of stopping the attack.
The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged claims that the officials failed to protect Perez from violence and that supervisors implemented a policy involving security-threat-group prisoners despite knowing an attack was likely. The court also agreed to hear related state-law claims. It ordered service of the complaint on the six named defendants.
Judge Donna M. Ryu denied Perez’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, referred the case to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, and stayed further proceedings after service while mediation is pursued. The order did not decide whether Perez will ultimately prevail on his claims.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Macias · No. 5:24-cv-02725
- Donna Ryu
- May 21, 2024
Background
Avaro Covarrubias Perez, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Warden Craig Koenig; Associate Warden C. Freeman; Facility Unit II Captain S. Handly; Lieutenant K. Sirwet; and Correctional Officers L. Lopez and Macias.
Perez alleged that, on May 25, 2021, Macias and Lopez ordered him to leave his assigned cell and participate in a mandatory yard release involving prisoners on security-threat-group lists. He alleged that prisoners then charged him and other inmates, beat and kicked him, and that correctional officials sprayed him in the face with pepper spray while he was trying to flee or defend himself. He claimed serious injuries and sought monetary damages.
Screening and Claims
Because Perez sought relief from prison officials, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
The court concluded that, liberally construing the complaint, Perez sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment claim that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety by failing to protect him from violence by other prisoners. The court also found sufficient allegations for supervisory-liability claims based on an allegedly constitutionally deficient policy integrating security-threat-group prisoners despite knowledge that an attack was likely. The court accepted supplemental jurisdiction over Perez’s related state-law claims.
Rulings and Case Status
The order stated that the complaint presented cognizable Eighth Amendment and supervisory-liability claims against the named defendants. It directed that the complaint and related documents be served on Craig Koenig, C. Freeman, S. Handly, K. Sirwet, L. Lopez, and Macias through the applicable California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation electronic-service process, with formal service by the United States Marshals Service for defendants who do not waive service.
The court denied Perez’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice because exceptional circumstances were not shown. The order left open the possibility that the court could appoint counsel at a later date if circumstances warranted it.
The court referred the action to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman for settlement proceedings through the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. After the complaint is served, further proceedings are stayed while mediation is pursued. If the case is not settled, the court stated that it will enter a scheduling order. The order screened the claims and allowed them to proceed; it did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.