From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendez v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 7, 2022
2:22-cv-1339 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1339 KJN P

09-07-2022

RAMON E. MENDEZ, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. On September 1, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order. Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened.

As set forth below, the undersigned requests the Supervising Deputy Attorney General respond to plaintiff's motion.

Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff requested inclusion in the sensitive needs yard to gain safety from a known prison gang he was allegedly forced to join. He alleges that on September 3, 2015, CSP-Sacramento Correctional Officer J. Ortega documented via CDC-1030 that plaintiff was having safety concerns with active members and associates of the prison gang and its sympathizers. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) The institutional gang investigator Officer J. Ortega disclosed such information to all CDCR employees and staff by putting it in the Strategic Offender Management System (“SOMS”) and the Electronic Records management System (“ERMS”). (ECF No. 1 at 9.) Despite this fact, plaintiff was twice assaulted by prison gang hit men, resulting in his transfer to CSP-Sacramento, and ultimately California Medical Facility (“CMF”), where he is presently housed. Plaintiff claims that upon completion of this mental health programming at CMF he will be transferred back to CSP-Sacramento where he again faces risks of such gang assaults, which risks are now heightened due to prison officials' decisions to house all inmates together rather than employ special needs yards. Plaintiff has raised his safety concerns in various ways at CMF without receiving an adequate response that his concerns are being taken seriously or being adequately addressed prior to his transfer.

Further, plaintiff alleges defendants refused to investigate, or report to the hiring authority or the Institutional Service Unit (“ISU”), a credible threat against plaintiff and his family, and failed to document the names of known enemies provided by plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 19.) Plaintiff claims that defendant Sgt. Ajon or Aijon refused to collect plaintiff's evidence that he and his parents are on the prison gang's “hit list,” and refused to investigate such evidence. (ECF No. 1 at 14.) When plaintiff told the sergeant that plaintiff had safety concerns and if housed with such prison gang members or associates or placed on a yard with them or their sympathizers plaintiff would be killed, the sergeant responded, “you'll have a better chance of staying alive, than me investigating all that shit.” (ECF No. 1 at 14.) When plaintiff pleaded with the sergeant to at least protect plaintiff's parents, the sergeant replied, “It's the [prison gang] bro; tell your family to give them what they want.” (Id.) The sergeant then concluded the interview, telling plaintiff the sergeant would continue to collaborate with defendant Byrd to issue a report on their findings.

Plaintiff seeks protection while housed in CDCR custody, an updated CDC 812 confidential and nonconfidential form/chrono, and money damages.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

In his motion, plaintiff claims, inter alia, that he will be transferred back to CSP-Sacramento on September 13, 2022, but because the list of his known enemies or potential enemies has not been updated, he faces a substantial risk of harm upon transfer from CMF to an institution where any such gang member, associate or sympathizer is housed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order, and plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 6) on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica N. Anderson, 1300 I Street, Suite 125, Sacramento, CA 95814; and

2. On or before September 12, 2022, Supervising Deputy General Monica N. Anderson is requested to address plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order.


Summaries of

Mendez v. CDCR

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 7, 2022
2:22-cv-1339 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Mendez v. CDCR

Case Details

Full title:RAMON E. MENDEZ, Plaintiff, v. CDCR, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 7, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-1339 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022)