Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01932/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01932-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Guerra
Defendant
I. Perez Pantoja
Defendant
Joseph Rael
Plaintiff

Document Text:

ORDER – No. 20-cv-01932-LB

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

JOSEPH RAEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

I. PEREZ PANTOJA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-01932-LB

ORDER OF SERVICE 

Re: ECF No. 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Joseph Rael, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad (CTF-Soledad), filed 

this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He consented to proceed before a 

magistrate judge. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)1

 His complaint is now before the court for review. This order 

finds that the complaint states a cognizable claim and orders service of process on the two 

defendants. 

STATEMENT 

Mr. Rael alleges the following in his complaint: On April 13, 2018, correctional officer (C/O) 

Guerra refused to let Mr. Rael go to a prison job. Mr. Rael told C/O Guerra that he would submit a 

1

 Citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the ECF-generated 

page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:20-cv-01932-LB Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 5
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01932-LB 2

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

staff complaint against C/O Guerra. Later that day, C/O Guerra was compelled to let Mr. Rael go 

to the job assignment, and Mr. Rael again told C/O Guerra he would file a complaint. A few days 

later, on April 17, 2018, C/O Perez-Pantoja asked if Mr. Rael had said to C/O Guerra that Mr. 

Rael would “write him up” and Mr. Rael responded that it had nothing to with C/O Perez-Pantoja, 

who then suggested that it would be bad if the “homies” learned that Mr. Rael was a snitch. (ECF 

No. 1 at 9.) 

Mr. Rael further alleges in his complaint: On April 21, 2018, Mr. Rael was in his cell with a 

contraband cell phone when C/O Perez-Pantoja and C/O Guerra entered the cell and attacked Mr. 

Rael, who was not posing any threat or resisting. The guards hit Mr. Rael with batons, peppersprayed him, slammed him to the ground, climbed atop him, and applied handcuffs very tightly. 

C/O Perez-Pantoja then falsified a rule violation report against Mr. Rael for resisting, disobeying 

orders, and assaulting the correctional officers. 

ANALYSIS 

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). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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 violation 

was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). 

An Eighth Amendment violation may occur when prison officials “maliciously and sadistically 

use force to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). Liberally construed, the 

complaint states a § 1983 claim against C/O Guerra and C/O Perez-Pantoja for the use of 

excessive force on Mr. Rael on April 21, 2018. 

Case 3:20-cv-01932-LB Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 5
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01932-LB 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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

An inmate has a First Amendment right to complain about prison officials without being 

subjected to retaliation in response thereto. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 

2012). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 

elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 

because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). 

Liberally construed, the pro se complaint states a cognizable claim against C/O Guerra and C/O 

Perez-Pantoja for retaliation based on their adverse actions (i.e., using unnecessary force on him 

and writing a false rule violation report) in response to Mr. Rael’s statement of intent to file an 

inmate appeal. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Liberally construed, the complaint states cognizable § 1983 claims against C/O PerezPantoja and C/O J. Guerra. 

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint, a copy of all the documents in the case 

file, and a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction” form upon C/O I. 

Perez-Pantoja and C/O J. Guerra, both of whom apparently work at CTF-Soledad. 

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

dispositive motions is set: 

 a. No later than June 26, 2020, the defendants must file and serve a motion for 

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

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

date the motion is due. If the defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the defendants must 

provide to the plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time 

they file such a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). If the motion is 

based on nonexhaustion of administrative remedies, the defendants must comply with the notice 

and procedural requirements in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Case 3:20-cv-01932-LB Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 5
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01932-LB 4

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

 b. The plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the summary judgment or other 

dispositive motion no later than August 7, 2020. The plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and 

warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to 

any motion for summary judgment. 

 c. If the defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and served 

no later than August 28, 2020. 

4. The plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for 

motions for summary judgment: 

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. 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). If a defendant files a motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, he or she is seeking to have the case 

dismissed. A plaintiff faced with such a motion can oppose it using the same methods as described 

above for other summary judgment motions. As with other defense summary judgment motions, if 

a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is granted, the case 

will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

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

by mailing a true copy of the document to the 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 

Case 3:20-cv-01932-LB Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 5
ORDER – No. 20-cv-01932-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

counsel has been designated, the plaintiff may serve a document by mailing a true copy of the 

document directly to the defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents 

must be mailed to counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

6. 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. 

7. The plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. The 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). The plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in 

every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility or is released from custody. 

8. The plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case 

on every document he files. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 27, 2020 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:20-cv-01932-LB Document 3 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 5