Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01542/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01542-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JANE DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARCUS JOHNSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1542 DJC AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and state law and has paid the filing fee. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 

regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by counsel, In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 

1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (“District courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by 

prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is 

represented by counsel, as [§ 1915A] does not differentiate between civil actions brought by 

prisoners.”). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 

claims that are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” 

or that “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 

Case 2:24-cv-01542-DJC-AC Document 28 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

§ 1915A(b). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 570). “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard 

applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 

II. Second Amended Complaint 

 The second amended complaint alleges that the California Institution for Women (CIW), 

where plaintiff has been incarcerated since 2015, has a long and well-documented history of 

correctional staff, including correctional cooks, sexually abusing the prisoners with few 

repercussions. ECF No. 27 at 2, 4-6. Against that backdrop, plaintiff asserts eleven causes of 

action against defendants Johnson, Montes, Gonzalez, Macomber, and Does 1-20 based on two 

separate instances of sexual assault by Johnson in 2020. Id. at 6-27. Johnson, Montes, and 

Gonzalez are sued in their individual capacities while Macomber is sued in his official capacity. 

Id. at 2-3. Doe defendants are identified as Investigative Services Unit (ISU) staff responsible for 

conducting staff investigations. Id. at 5, 10. 

In spring of 2020, plaintiff worked in the kitchen where Johnson was her supervisor. Id. 

at 6. Johnson caught plaintiff taking fresh vegetables from the kitchen and told her he would 

write her up. Id. at 7. After plaintiff expressed her concerns about getting written up and asked if 

she could take do extra duty instead of being written up, Johnson took her to into the bathroom 

where he forced her to perform oral sex on him before slamming her against the wall and raping 

her. Id. While raping her, Johnson threatened plaintiff by telling her that if she reported him no 

one would believe her and he would say she sexually assaulted him, subjecting her to criminal 

charges. Id. During a second incident in June 2020, Johnson demanded that plaintiff perform 

Case 2:24-cv-01542-DJC-AC Document 28 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

oral sex on him, which she did out of fear of what he would do if she did not comply. Id. at 7-8. 

As a result of Johnson’s abuse, plaintiff suffered from anxiety and panic attacks and required 

emergency mental health treatment due to extreme anxiety and suicidal ideation. Id. at 8. When 

plaintiff requested mental health and other support services under the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act (PREA), Gonzalez, Montes, and Doe defendants failed to provide them in a timely and 

appropriate manner. Id. at 9. They further prevented her from seeking counseling from the local 

rape crisis center because such calls were required to be done from the ISU office, which was a 

threatening and intimidating environment for survivors who reported staff sexual abuse. Id. 

Sexual abuse by supervising cooks has been a known problem at CIW since 2017, and 

Gonzalez, Montes, and Doe defendants have failed to take appropriate action against accused 

staff, perpetuating the culture of abuse. Id. at 8-9. Johnson specifically was well known at CIW 

for sexually abusing prisoners, and at least four other complaints were made against Johnson in 

2020 for sexual abuse. Id. Prior to his assault of plaintiff, Johnson received a promotion after 

being accused of sexually abusing at least one other prisoner. Id. at 10. Plaintiff further alleges 

that Gonzalez and Montes knew or should have known she was at risk of being sexually abused 

by Johnson, and that they violated policy by referring the investigation of Johnson to CIW’s ISU 

instead of to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Id. at 10. ISU staff were not properly trained to 

investigate allegations of staff sexual abuse and were inherently conflicted due to personal 

relationships many had with the accused staff members. Id. During the investigation, Doe ISU 

staff harassed and threatened Johnson’s victims, including plaintiff, and the investigation was not 

referred to OIA until several years after the allegations against Johnson were made. Id. Although 

plaintiff was supposed to be informed as to whether investigators believed she had been abused 

and any action had been taken against Johnson, she was not notified that her allegations against 

Johnson had been sustained until four years after the abuse, and she has still not been informed by 

CIW staff about any action taken against Johnson. Id. at 11, 15. During that time she 

experienced severe anxiety, fear of retaliation, and other severe emotional distress. Id. at 11. 

As Warden of CIW, Montes was required to be immediately notified about any allegations 

of sexual misconduct and served on the Institutional PREA Review Committee, where he was 

Case 2:24-cv-01542-DJC-AC Document 28 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

required to conduct an incident review, and he was responsible for overseeing matters handled by 

the ISU. Id. at 11-12. Montes indifference to his responsibilities and failure to ensure 

compliance with CDCR regulations and policies regarding the investigation into alleged sexual 

misconduct encouraged the rampant and ongoing sexual abuse of prisoners by CIW staff. Id. at 

11-13. He further knew or should have known that Johnson was being considered for promotion 

despite allegations against him for sexual abuse, and the authorization of the promotion condoned 

and encouraged Johnson’s continued abuse of prisoners. Id. at 13. Montes also failed to 

implement adequate hiring policies to prevent the hiring of sexual predators and adequate training 

to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse by staff. Id. 

As the CIW PREA Compliance Manager, Gonzalez had various responsibilities for every 

PREA incident, including conducting reviews for compliance and determining any necessary 

follow up, monitoring for and addressing any retaliation following a PREA report, and collecting 

and reporting on staff sexual misconduct investigations on a monthly basis. Id. at 13-14. 

Gonzalez failed to carry out his responsibilities, including taking appropriate action against 

Johnson, which led to plaintiff’s injury and created an ongoing risk of further abuse by 

contributing to and encouraging the culture of sexual abuse at CIW. Id. at 14-15. 

Plaintiff remains incarcerated at CIW and has named Macomber, Secretary of the CDCR, 

in his official capacity only for the purpose of obtaining injunctive relief at CIW and within the 

CDCR. Id. at 15-16, 27-28. 

III. Discussion 

The allegations of the second amended complaint are largely identical to those contained 

in the first amended complaint, except that plaintiff has removed claims and defendants that were 

previously screened out and added facts related to the conduct of the Doe defendants and their 

general identities. Compare ECF No. 11 with ECF No. 27. After conducting the required 

screening, the court finds that the second amended complaint has stated viable claims for relief 

against defendants Johnson, Montes, Gonzalez, Macomber, and Does 1-20, and they will be 

required to respond to the complaint. However, the Doe defendants will not be required to 

respond until plaintiff has filed an amended complaint substituting named individuals for the Doe 

Case 2:24-cv-01542-DJC-AC Document 28 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

defendants. Additionally, although defendant Johnson has been served (ECF No. 15 at 5), he has 

yet to appear in this action.1 Plaintiff will therefore be required to serve Johnson with a copy of 

the second amended complaint and this order. 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The second amended complaint states viable claims against defendants Macomber,

Johnson, Montes, Gonzalez, and Doe Defendants 1-20 as set forth above; 

2. Within twenty-one days of the filing of this order, defendants Macomber, Montes, and

Gonzalez shall respond to the complaint; and

3. Within fourteen days of the filing of this order, plaintiff shall serve a copy of the

second amended complaint and this order on defendant Johnson and file a certificate of service. 

Defendant Johnson shall respond to the complaint within twenty-one days of service. 

DATED: December 5, 2024 

1

 Defendants Montes, Gonzalez, and Macomber have been served and counsel has appeared on 

their behalf. ECF Nos. 15, 17, 21. 

Case 2:24-cv-01542-DJC-AC Document 28 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 5