Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00581/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00581-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRAYNO CRUMB,

CDCR #H-20376,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARK HASSELBLAD, Correctional 

Officer; DAVID STRAYHORN, 

Correctional Officer,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 

HASSELBLAD AND STRAYHORN 

TO FILE A RESPONSE AS TO 

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 31]

Frayno Crumb (“Plaintiff”) is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”), and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 22, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint (“SAC”) “alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force claims arising on 

January 27, 2015, at RJDCF against Defendants D. Strayhorn and M. Hasselblad only, 

and to serve it upon their counsel of record, no later than Monday, July 10, 2017.” (ECF 

No. 27 at 6.)1

 

1 At the same time and in the same Order, the Court dismissed Defendants R. Olson and J. 

Ramero as parties to this case. (ECF No. 27 at 5.)

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 32 Filed 07/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS

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

On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed his SAC by mailing it to the Clerk of the Court 

(ECF No. 31); but he did not attach a proof of service by mail upon Defendants’ counsel 

of record. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(a)(1), (d). The Clerk of Court nevertheless issued 

Defendant Strayhorn and Hasselblad’s counsel a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) as 

to Plaintiff’s SAC, on the same day—June 23, 2017. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 5.4.c, d; ECF 

No. 31 (https://ecf.casd.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl?114159199404839-L_1_0-

1).

Plaintiff’s SAC contains the same excessive force allegations against Defendants 

Strayhorn and Hasselblad as his original Complaint, and the Court has already found 

them sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. See 

ECF No. 8 at 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), § 1915A(b)(1); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (noting 

that when prison officials stand accused of using excessive force, the core judicial inquiry 

is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”)). 

While Defendants may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to 

any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility 

under section 1983,” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), once the Court has conducted its sua 

sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made 

a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a 

“reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” Defendants properly served with 

summons and the original complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4 are required to respond. 

See ECF Nos. 11, 12 (waivers of service returned executed on behalf of Defendants 

Hasselblad and Strayhorn by U.S. Marshal on January 31, 2017).

///

///

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 32 Filed 07/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS

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

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, Defendants Hasselblad and Strayhorn are hereby Ordered to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s SAC (ECF No. 31), and to serve that response upon Plaintiff no 

later than Friday, July 28, 2017.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2017

 

2 The Court notes, as it has previously, that it is still not “clear from the face” of Plaintiff’s 

SAC whether he exhausted all available administrative remedies as to his excessive force 

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) before filing it. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 

1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). 

In his SAC, which is verified under penalty of perjury, see ECF No. 31 at 20, Plaintiff 

states he has “previously sought and exhausted all forms of available relief from the proper 

administrative officials regarding the acts alleged” in his SAC. (Id. at 6). But he also claims 

his attempts to file a CDC 602 staff complaint were “thwarted by I/M Appeals Coordinator 

R. Olson.” Id., Ex. D-E at 49-64; Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016) (“[A]n inmate 

is required to exhaust those, but only those, grievance procedures that are ‘capable of use’ 

to obtain ‘some relief for the action complained of.’”) (quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 

731, 738 (2001)); id. at 1859-60 (noting unavailability where “prison administrators thwart 

inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, 

misrepresentation, or intimidation.”). Therefore, because exhaustion is an affirmative 

defense, Defendants Strayhorn and Hasselblad “will have to present probative evidence ... 

‘to plead and prove’ ... that [Plaintiff] has failed to exhaust” all availalable administrative 

remedies pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56, should they elect to defend on this basis. Albino, 

747 F.3d at 1169 (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007)).

Case 3:16-cv-00581-BTM-NLS Document 32 Filed 07/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3