1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEJON GRIFFIN, Case No. 25-cv-05925-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE; STAYING 9 v. ACTION; AND REFERRING FOR SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS 10 STEPHEN SMITH, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under

1983 alleging an excessive force incident at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) as well as an 15 unconstitutional policy by the PBSP warden leading to the incident. For the reasons stated below, 16 the complaint is ordered served on the defendants. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in 17 forma pauperis. The case will be stayed and referred for settlement proceedings. 18 DISCUSSION 19 1. Standard of Review 20 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 21 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 23 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 24 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 25 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 26 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 1 statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 2 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 3 detailed factual allegations in a complaint, the complaint must do more than recite elements of a 4 cause of action and state conclusions; rather, a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 5 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 7 plausible on its face.”

. The Supreme Court explained this standard: “[w]hile legal 8 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 9 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 10 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 11 v. Iqbal,

(2009). 12 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 13 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 14 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 15 Atkins,

(1988). 16 2. Legal Claims 17 Plaintiff alleges the following. Around November or December of 2024, defendant 18 Warden Smith implemented a policy of housing disruptive prisoners from protective custody 19 yards and prisoners with mental health issues in the general population yard “to sabotage 20 programing.” Defendant Smith knew or should have known that this policy would endanger the 21 safety and security of other prisoners. He also failed to train correctional officers on how to escort 22 these prisoners. 23 On December 6, 2024, plaintiff was attending a religious service and stepped out, with 24 permission, to use the restroom. He saw another prisoner in the hallway who he believed was a 25 new arrival and attempted to offer him assistance in his role as Vice Chairman of the Inmate 26 Advisory Council on B Facility. Defendant correctional officers Sanchez and Herrera were 27 escorting the other prisoner, who had told them that he intended to attack the first person he 1 the attack, and instead used pepper gas and a baton on plaintiff numerous times. 2 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a claim under section 1983 against defendants 3 Sanchez and Herrera for deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of his Eighth Amendment 4 rights for failing to protect him from the attack and for using excessive force against him. See 5 Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994). Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a claim 6 against defendant Smith for implementing a constitutionally defective policy that caused the 7 violation of his rights. See Starr v. Baca,

(9th Cir. 2011). 8 3. Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program 9 The Northern District of California has established a Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. 10 Certain prisoner civil rights cases may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for settlement 11 proceedings. The proceedings will consist of one or more conferences as determined by Magistrate 12 Judge Robert M. Illman. The Court finds that this action should be referred to Magistrate Judge 13 Illman for settlement proceedings. Accordingly, the Court hereby REFERS this case to Magistrate 14 Judge Illman for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Such 15 proceedings shall take place within 120 days of the date this Order is filed, or as soon thereafter as 16 Magistrate Judge Illman’s calendar will permit. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, 17 time and date for one or more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their 18 representatives and, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, shall 19 file with the Court a report thereon. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 22 1. The following defendant(s) shall be served: 23 a. Stephen Smith, PBSP warden 24 b. Natalia Herrera, correctional officer at PBSP 25 c. Hugo Sanchez, correctional officer at PBSP 26 Service on the listed defendant(s) shall proceed under the California Department of 27 Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service pilot program for civil rights cases from 1 serve on CDCR via email the following documents: the operative complaint, this order of service, 2 a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form and a summons. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy 3 of this order on plaintiff. 4 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR shall provide 5 the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which defendant(s) 6 listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the United 7 States Marshal Service (USMS) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or could not be 8 reached. CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the 9 California Attorney General’s Office, which, within 21 days, shall file with the court a waiver of 10 service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 11 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 12 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 13 USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-285 form and copies 14 of this order, summons, and operative complaint for service upon each defendant who has not 15 waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 16 Service Waiver. 17 2. This action is referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The Clerk is 18 directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this Order and to notify Magistrate Judge 19 Illman that a copy of the court file can be retrieved from the Court’s electronic filing database. 20 3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21 No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 22 before the parties may conduct discovery. 23 4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or 24 defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 25 defendants or defendants’ counsel. 26 5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 27 and all parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a 1 of Civil Procedure 41(b). 2 6. In view of the referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, after the 3 |} complaint has been served on the aforementioned named defendant against whom plaintiff has 4 alleged cognizable claims, all other further proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 2, 2025 jp 8 sy arn, LISA/. ZISNHROS 9 Unit¢d States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28