JANE DOE, No. 2:24-cv-1542 DJC AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MARCUS JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law and has paid the filing fee. I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by counsel, In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (“District courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel, as [§ 1915A] does not differentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners.”). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). II. Second Amended Complaint The second amended complaint alleges that the California Institution for Women (CIW), where plaintiff has been incarcerated since 2015, has a long and well-documented history of correctional staff, including correctional cooks, sexually abusing the prisoners with few repercussions. ECF No. 27 at 2, 4-6. Against that backdrop, plaintiff asserts eleven causes of action against defendants Johnson, Montes, Gonzalez, Macomber, and Does 1-20 based on two separate instances of sexual assault by Johnson in 2020. Id. at 6-27. Johnson, Montes, and Gonzalez are sued in their individual capacities while Macomber is sued in his official capacity. Id. at 2-3. Doe defendants are identified as Investigative Services Unit (ISU) staff responsible for conducting staff investigations. Id. at 5, 10. In spring of 2020, plaintiff worked in the kitchen where Johnson was her supervisor. Id. at 6. Johnson caught plaintiff taking fresh vegetables from the kitchen and told her he would write her up. Id. at 7. After plaintiff expressed her concerns about getting written up and asked if she could take do extra duty instead of being written up, Johnson took her to into the bathroom where he forced her to perform oral sex on him before slamming her against the wall and raping her. Id. While raping her, Johnson threatened plaintiff by telling her that if she reported him no one would believe her and he would say she sexually assaulted him, subjecting her to criminal charges. Id. During a second incident in June 2020, Johnson demanded that plaintiff perform oral sex on him, which she did out of fear of what he would do if she did not comply. Id. at 7-8. As a result of Johnson’s abuse, plaintiff suffered from anxiety and panic attacks and required emergency mental health treatment due to extreme anxiety and suicidal ideation. Id. at 8. When plaintiff requested mental health and other support services under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), Gonzalez, Montes, and Doe defendants failed to provide them in a timely and appropriate manner. Id. at 9. They further prevented her from seeking counseling from the local rape crisis center because such calls were required to be done from the ISU office, which was a threatening and intimidating environment for survivors who reported staff sexual abuse. Id. Sexual abuse by supervising cooks has been a known problem at CIW since 2017, and Gonzalez, Montes, and Doe defendants have failed to take appropriate action against accused staff, perpetuating the culture of abuse. Id. at 8-9. Johnson specifically was well known at CIW for sexually abusing prisoners, and at least four other complaints were made against Johnson in 2020 for sexual abuse. Id. Prior to his assault of plaintiff, Johnson received a promotion after being accused of sexually abusing at least one other prisoner. Id. at 10. Plaintiff further alleges that Gonzalez and Montes knew or should have known she was at risk of being sexually abused by Johnson, and that they violated policy by referring the investigation of Johnson to CIW’s ISU instead of to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Id. at 10. ISU staff were not properly trained to investigate allegations of staff sexual abuse and were inherently conflicted due to personal relationships many had with the accused staff members. Id. During the investigation, Doe ISU staff harassed and threatened Johnson’s victims, including plaintiff, and the investigation was not referred to OIA until several years after the allegations against Johnson were made. Id. Although plaintiff was supposed to be informed as to whether investigators believed she had been abused and any action had been taken against Johnson, she was not notified that her allegations against Johnson had been sustained until four years after the abuse, and she has still not been informed by CIW staff about any action taken against Johnson. Id. at 11, 15. During that time she experienced severe anxiety, fear of retaliation, and other severe emotional distress. Id. at 11. As Warden of CIW, Montes was required to be immediately notified about any allegations of sexual misconduct and served on the Institutional PREA Review Committee, where he was required to conduct an incident review, and he was responsible for overseeing matters handled by the ISU. Id. at 11-12. Montes indifference to his responsibilities and failure to ensure compliance with CDCR regulations and policies regarding the investigation into alleged sexual misconduct encouraged the rampant and ongoing sexual abuse of prisoners by CIW staff. Id. at 11-13. He further knew or should have known that Johnson was being considered for promotion despite allegations against him for sexual abuse, and the authorization of the promotion condoned and encouraged Johnson’s continued abuse of prisoners. Id. at 13. Montes also failed to implement adequate hiring policies to prevent the hiring of sexual predators and adequate training to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse by staff. Id. As the CIW PREA Compliance Manager, Gonzalez had various responsibilities for every PREA incident, including conducting reviews for compliance and determining any necessary follow up, monitoring for and addressing any retaliation following a PREA report,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JANE DOE, No. 2:24-cv-1542 DJC AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MARCUS JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law and has paid the filing fee. I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by counsel, In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (“District courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel, as [§ 1915A] does not differentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners.”). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). II. Second Amended Complaint The second amended complaint alleges that the California Institution for Women (CIW), where plaintiff has been incarcerated since 2015, has a long and well-documented history of correctional staff, including correctional cooks, sexually abusing the prisoners with few repercussions. ECF No. 27 at 2, 4-6. Against that backdrop, plaintiff asserts eleven causes of action against defendants Johnson, Montes, Gonzalez, Macomber, and Does 1-20 based on two separate instances of sexual assault by Johnson in 2020. Id. at 6-27. Johnson, Montes, and Gonzalez are sued in their individual capacities while Macomber is sued in his official capacity. Id. at 2-3. Doe defendants are identified as Investigative Services Unit (ISU) staff responsible for conducting staff investigations. Id. at 5, 10. In spring of 2020, plaintiff worked in the kitchen where Johnson was her supervisor. Id. at 6. Johnson caught plaintiff taking fresh vegetables from the kitchen and told her he would write her up. Id. at 7. After plaintiff expressed her concerns about getting written up and asked if she could take do extra duty instead of being written up, Johnson took her to into the bathroom where he forced her to perform oral sex on him before slamming her against the wall and raping her. Id. While raping her, Johnson threatened plaintiff by telling her that if she reported him no one would believe her and he would say she sexually assaulted him, subjecting her to criminal charges. Id. During a second incident in June 2020, Johnson demanded that plaintiff perform oral sex on him, which she did out of fear of what he would do if she did not comply. Id. at 7-8. As a result of Johnson’s abuse, plaintiff suffered from anxiety and panic attacks and required emergency mental health treatment due to extreme anxiety and suicidal ideation. Id. at 8. When plaintiff requested mental health and other support services under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), Gonzalez, Montes, and Doe defendants failed to provide them in a timely and appropriate manner. Id. at 9. They further prevented her from seeking counseling from the local rape crisis center because such calls were required to be done from the ISU office, which was a threatening and intimidating environment for survivors who reported staff sexual abuse. Id. Sexual abuse by supervising cooks has been a known problem at CIW since 2017, and Gonzalez, Montes, and Doe defendants have failed to take appropriate action against accused staff, perpetuating the culture of abuse. Id. at 8-9. Johnson specifically was well known at CIW for sexually abusing prisoners, and at least four other complaints were made against Johnson in 2020 for sexual abuse. Id. Prior to his assault of plaintiff, Johnson received a promotion after being accused of sexually abusing at least one other prisoner. Id. at 10. Plaintiff further alleges that Gonzalez and Montes knew or should have known she was at risk of being sexually abused by Johnson, and that they violated policy by referring the investigation of Johnson to CIW’s ISU instead of to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). Id. at 10. ISU staff were not properly trained to investigate allegations of staff sexual abuse and were inherently conflicted due to personal relationships many had with the accused staff members. Id. During the investigation, Doe ISU staff harassed and threatened Johnson’s victims, including plaintiff, and the investigation was not referred to OIA until several years after the allegations against Johnson were made. Id. Although plaintiff was supposed to be informed as to whether investigators believed she had been abused and any action had been taken against Johnson, she was not notified that her allegations against Johnson had been sustained until four years after the abuse, and she has still not been informed by CIW staff about any action taken against Johnson. Id. at 11, 15. During that time she experienced severe anxiety, fear of retaliation, and other severe emotional distress. Id. at 11. As Warden of CIW, Montes was required to be immediately notified about any allegations of sexual misconduct and served on the Institutional PREA Review Committee, where he was required to conduct an incident review, and he was responsible for overseeing matters handled by the ISU. Id. at 11-12. Montes indifference to his responsibilities and failure to ensure compliance with CDCR regulations and policies regarding the investigation into alleged sexual misconduct encouraged the rampant and ongoing sexual abuse of prisoners by CIW staff. Id. at 11-13. He further knew or should have known that Johnson was being considered for promotion despite allegations against him for sexual abuse, and the authorization of the promotion condoned and encouraged Johnson’s continued abuse of prisoners. Id. at 13. Montes also failed to implement adequate hiring policies to prevent the hiring of sexual predators and adequate training to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse by staff. Id. As the CIW PREA Compliance Manager, Gonzalez had various responsibilities for every PREA incident, including conducting reviews for compliance and determining any necessary follow up, monitoring for and addressing any retaliation following a PREA report, and collecting and reporting on staff sexual misconduct investigations on a monthly basis. Id. at 13-14. Gonzalez failed to carry out his responsibilities, including taking appropriate action against Johnson, which led to plaintiff’s injury and created an ongoing risk of further abuse by contributing to and encouraging the culture of sexual abuse at CIW. Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff remains incarcerated at CIW and has named Macomber, Secretary of the CDCR, in his official capacity only for the purpose of obtaining injunctive relief at CIW and within the CDCR. Id. at 15-16, 27-28. III. Discussion The allegations of the second amended complaint are largely identical to those contained in the first amended complaint, except that plaintiff has removed claims and defendants that were previously screened out and added facts related to the conduct of the Doe defendants and their general identities. Compare ECF No. 11 with ECF No. 27. After conducting the required screening, the court finds that the second amended complaint has stated viable claims for relief against defendants Johnson, Montes, Gonzalez, Macomber, and Does 1-20, and they will be required to respond to the complaint. However, the Doe defendants will not be required to respond until plaintiff has filed an amended complaint substituting named individuals for the Doe defendants. Additionally, although defendant Johnson has been served (ECF No. 15 at 5), he has yet to appear in this action.! Plaintiff will therefore be required to serve Johnson with a copy of the second amended complaint and this order. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The second amended complaint states viable claims against defendants Macomber, Johnson, Montes, Gonzalez, and Doe Defendants 1-20 as set forth above; 2. Within twenty-one days of the filing of this order, defendants Macomber, Montes, and Gonzalez shall respond to the complaint; and 3. Within fourteen days of the filing of this order, plaintiff shall serve a copy of the second amended complaint and this order on defendant Johnson and file a certificate of service. Defendant Johnson shall respond to the complaint within twenty-one days of service. DATED: December 5, 2024 Chttien— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE Id UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Q_—_ x Soda ' Defendants Montes, Gonzalez, and Macomber have been served and counsel has appeared on their behalf. ECF Nos. 15, 17, 21.