This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case referred to the Federal Pro Bono Program for general purpose appointment of counsel to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. He brings this action against several officers alleging they violated his Eighth Amendment rights regarding his conditions of confinement during flooding at the detention center. On January 9, 2013, a defective toilet overflowed at the detention center. The overflow spread throughout the module and it was locked down. Plaintiff was part of the clean-up crew, and he and other inmates mopped, swept, scooped, and squeegeed the overflown water down a drain. He claims the water was contaminated with human waste. He was wearing his shower shoes—open-toed sandals—and was denied additional protective equipment. When he asked for more protective equipment, he was told to stop complaining and to get back to work. He filed grievances to the module supervisor, who apologized for failing to provide protective equipment and said he would do better in the future. When the same toilet overflowed two weeks later, Plaintiff attests, it was déjà vu all over again. Defendants claim the water was clear and free of any human waste. Plaintiff’s case is post summary judgment. Documents available for review: Amended Complaint, Answer, Screening Order, MSJ, Opposition to MSJ, Reply to MSJ, Referral & Summary Judgment Order
Case Number: 2017-005281
Case Number: 2018-001535
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case referred to the Federal Pro Bono Program for the limited purpose of participating in the settlement negotiations. The Plaintiff sustained numerous injuries during transportation to receive medical care on multiple different occasions. Plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair as a result of a series of strokes which have left him paralyzed. A partial list of events include: not being transported in an ADA compliant vehicle; being lifted inappropriately which resulted in various injuries to his groin, arm, head, and neck; and wheelchair not secured during transport. Plaintiff brings these claims pursuant to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794 or Section 5, and asserts that each Defendant discriminated and/or denied Plaintiff the prison service of the ADA transportation vehicle when they transported him to medical appointments. Plaintiff also alleges that he was deprived of services due to each Defendant being improperly trained and/or supervised in the handling and transportation of prisoners with disabilities. In addition to the ADA and RA claim, the Court also interprets the allegations as a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference. The Plaintiff also alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause which a Defendant failed to provide timely medication attention when Plaintiff was suffering from a stroke, accused Plaintiff is faking a problem to get out of work, and twisting his arm to the point it became dislocated or broken. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief requesting that the prison officials undergo training. Documents available for review: Screening Order, Referral Order, and the Complaint.
Case Number: 2017-001045
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case referred to the Federal Pro Bono Program for general purpose appointment of counsel to Plaintiff. In the complaint, client sues multiple defendants for events that took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) and Ely State Prison (“ESP”). (ECF No. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff alleges five counts and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. (Id. at 11, 13-15). The complaint alleges the following: On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff arrived at HDSP intake. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff informed an HDSP caseworker that he was vegan in accord with the spiritual customs of Moorish Science, a religion. (Id. at 4). On March 31, 2015, Warden Bruce Stroud approved Plaintiff for a vegan diet. (Id.) However, he was never given the vegan diet despite many attempts to obtain it. Plaintiff alleges violations of: (a) First Amendment free exercise of religion violations (Count I); (b) Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause violations (Count II); (c) Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment with respect to adequate nutrition (Count III); (d) First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances (Count IV); and (e) RLUIPA violations (Count V). (Id. at 5, 7-8, 10-11). A. Counts I and V (Religion). The court already ordered that given the nature of the claim(s) that the Court has permitted to proceed, this action is stayed for ninety (90) days to allow Plaintiff and Defendant(s) an opportunity to settle their dispute before the $350.00 filing fee is paid, an answer is filed, or the discovery process begins. During this ninety-day stay period, no other pleadings or papers shall be filed in this case, and the parties shall not engage in any discovery. The Court will refer this case to the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation Program.