Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05559/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05559-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY P. RUIZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. WALKER; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-5559 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE 

INTRODUCTION

Johnny P. Ruiz, a prisoner now incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, filed this pro se

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the court for initial

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

The complaint concerns defendants' alleged activity in setting up Ruiz to be assaulted by

another inmate when he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. The complaint alleges

the following:

On September 29, 2005, lieutenant Walker ordered Ruiz to be moved from one

administrative segregation ("ad-seg”) unit to another ad-seg unit for his alleged involvement in

a conspiracy to murder a peace officer. Correctional officer Lonero took Ruiz from his cell

under the pretense that Ruiz would be cleaning showers and then told him that he was being

moved.

Case 3:06-cv-05559-SI Document 7 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Upon Ruiz's arrival at the new ad-seg unit, sergeant Sotelo, and correctional officers

Aldana and Rocha sent Ruiz to a cell. Ruiz noticed that one of his documented enemies was in

the cell and protested, telling the escorting officers that he knew the prisoner and "I can't go in

there." Complaint, p. 5. Nonetheless, sergeant Sotelo opened the door and Ruiz was shoved into

the cell. As soon as Ruiz and his new cellmate (Marcos Guillen) were released from their

handcuffs, a fight broke out. Ruiz suffered injuries, including a puncture wound to the throat

and a chest wound. Defendants Sotelo, Ortega, Aldana, Rocha and Galindo then responded to

an alarm and stopped the fight with pepper spray. 

Ruiz was escorted to the treatment center for medical care. MTA G. Lauber noted Ruiz's

injuries on a medical evaluation sheet. Ruiz was then housed in a single cell and, within a week,

was moved back to his original ad-seg unit.

Ruiz received a rule violation report on October 7, 2005 that was inconsistent and

suggested to him a cover-up of a conspiracy to have him harmed. MTA Lauber allegedly had

re-written his medical evaluation to show less severe injuries than those noted earlier. Other

correctional officer defendants failed to write up required staff reports about the fight.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

Case 3:06-cv-05559-SI Document 7 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment requires that

prison officials take reasonable measures for the safety of inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In particular, officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence at the

hands of other inmates. See id. at 833. A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only

when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious,

and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate's safety. See id. at 834.

Liberally construed, the allegations of the complaint state a claim under § 1983 for

deliberate indifference to Ruiz's safety in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Ruiz has

adequately linked defendants Walker, Sotelo, Aldana, Rocha, and Lonero to his claim.

The complaint does not state a claim for relief against defendants Galindo and Ortega,

whose alleged involvement consisted of assisting in stopping a cell fight. Even if these

defendants did not properly document the cell fight, the lack of documentation cannot be said

to have caused the already-completed attack on Ruiz. 

The complaint also does not state a claim for relief against defendant Lauber, who did the

medical evaluation. Even if Lauber later changed the medical evaluation form, that cannot be

said to have caused the already-completed attack on Ruiz. Ruiz cannot overcome the timing

problem by alleging a conspiratorial cover-up. A mere allegation of conspiracy without factual

specificity is insufficient. Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 655 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988)), reversed on

other grounds by Johnson v. California, 125 S. Ct. 1141 (2005).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. Plaintiff's complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

defendants Walker, Sotelo, Aldana, Rocha, and Lonero. Defendants Galindo, Ortega and Lauber

are dismissed from this action.

Case 3:06-cv-05559-SI Document 7 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2. The clerk shall issue summonses and the United States Marshal shall serve,

without prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the amended complaint and a copy of this

order upon the following five defendants, all of whom apparently are employed at Salinas Valley

State Prison:

- N. Walker (correctional lieutenant)

- A. Sotelo (correctional sergeant)

- D. Aldana (correctional officer)

- D. Rocha (correctional officer)

- C. Lonero (correctional officer)

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than March 2, 2007, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than April 6, 2007. Plaintiff

must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as he prepares

his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. [¶] 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants'

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. (See Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998).) 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they must file and serve the reply

Case 3:06-cv-05559-SI Document 7 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

brief no later than April 20, 2007.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 

7. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05559-SI Document 7 Filed 12/18/06 Page 5 of 5