Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05910/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05910-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD A. NELSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 01 5910 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections at Pelican Bay State Prison, brings this civil rights action

against defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections. The events

that give rise to this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran. 

Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Cal Terhune, former

Director of the California Department of Corrections; Fred A. Brown, Chief Deputy Warden at

CSP Corcoran; Associate Warden D. G. Stockman; Captian R. Priola; Correctional Counselor J.

Short; Lieutenant. A. Walker; Lt. F. A. Rodriguez; Correctional Officer (C/O) B. Gaspar; C/O B.

Case 1:01-cv-05910-LJO-WMW Document 30 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Cooke; C/O R. Silveira; C/o F. Balunan; C/O V. Pierce; C/O Yrigollen; C/O L. Lopez; C/O

Blaas; C/O Brian Davis; C/P Patrick Trout; Sergeant Paul Flores.

The bulk of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is taken up with allegations

regarding interference with the prison grievance process, and with deficiencies regarding prison

disciplinary processes Plaintiff was subjected to. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that charges were

made based upon false allegations. Plaintiff also claims that correctional officials continued to

interfere with his ability to provide other inmates with legal assistance. 

Plaintiff also levels a specific allegation that on February 18, 2000, he was

attacked and injured by other inmates (documented rival gang members) on the Facility 3A

Administrative Segregation yard. Plaintiff specifically alleges that this attack was “orchestrated

and staged” by defendants Cooke, Walker, Short, Ortiz and Priola. Plaintiff alleges that this

attack was orchestrated as a means of punishment and retaliation against Plaintiff for his filing of

inmate grievances against Facility 3A correctional staff. 

The court has screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

finds that it appears to state cognizable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

defendants Cooke, Walker, Short, Ortiz and Priola for failing to protect him, in violation of the

Eighth Amendment and for retaliation for filing inmate grievances. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

Sergeant Cooke

Lieutenant Walker

Correctional Counselor Short

Captain Ortiz

Captain Priola

Case 1:01-cv-05910-LJO-WMW Document 30 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff five USM-285 forms, five summonses,

a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the

second amended complaint filed September 27, 2004.

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to

the court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and 

c. Six copies of the endorsed second ameded complaint filed September 27,

2004. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05910-LJO-WMW Document 30 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 3