Bess v. Barroso

Background

Daniel E. Bess, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil action against Lieutenant J. Barroso, Lieutenant J. Martinez, and R. Oviedo, officials at the Correctional Training Facility. The court had previously conducted an initial review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In that earlier order, it dismissed with leave to amend Bess’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, his Eighth Amendment claim, and all claims to the extent they sought damages for emotional or mental injuries.

The earlier order found that Bess’s First Amendment retaliation claim, Bane Act claim, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim were capable of judicial determination when liberally construed, but only to the extent he sought forms of relief other than damages for emotional or mental injuries. Bess informed the court that he did not want to file an amended complaint, accepted dismissal of the claims the court had rejected, and wanted to pursue the remaining claims.

Ruling

The court dismissed with prejudice Bess’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, his Eighth Amendment claim, and all claims to the extent he sought damages for emotional or mental injuries. The opinion does not state that the court reached the merits of those claims; the dismissals followed the earlier initial screening and Bess’s decision not to amend.

The court ordered service on Lieutenant J. Barroso, Lieutenant J. Martinez, and R. Oviedo through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the defendants to file an answer and required them to file a summary-judgment motion or other dispositive motion by September 1, 2024. Bess’s opposition was due September 29, 2024, and any reply was due October 13, 2024. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.

Other Procedures

The order permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without requiring another court order under the specified discovery rules. It also required Bess to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel. The order reminded Bess that requests to review or obtain copies of non-confidential materials in his medical and central files must be made directly to prison officials rather than to the court.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley entered an order of partial dismissal and of service. The specified claims and damages requests were dismissed with prejudice, while the remaining claims proceeded to service and further litigation.