3:24-cv-01257
S.D. Cal.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Dragasits, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, alleges that on Nov. 24, 2018 he was using an ADA vest and walker and was ordered to the back of the chow line.
- Correctional Officer Archuleta allegedly took his ID, tripped him from behind causing a fall, climbed on his back, and called a code; Officers Massia and Garcia allegedly punched and kicked him, causing a compound rib fracture.
- Officer Quijada allegedly witnessed the incident and made a gesture as if to catch Dragasits; several other officers allegedly failed to intervene or arrived later. Archuleta later wrote a rules-violation report with an account favorable to her.
- Dragasits was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing, later received a rehearing after Archuleta’s absence was noted, and was transferred to Kern Valley State Prison; he alleges interference with staff-complaint processing and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- He asserts claims under the Eighth Amendment (excessive force; failure to protect), ADA, Fourteenth Amendment due process, First Amendment (speech and access-to-courts), supervisor liability, and state-law assault/battery and IIED.
- The court screened the consolidated amended complaint: it allowed Eighth Amendment excessive-force and related state claims to proceed against Archuleta, Massia, Garcia, and a failure-to-protect claim as to Quijada; it dismissed all other federal claims and many defendants, ordered U.S. Marshal service on the surviving defendants, and set a Sept. 26, 2025 deadline to amend or proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment excessive force | Archuleta, Massia, Garcia beat Dragasits without justification causing serious injury | Force was used to restore order and/or in response to resistance | Claim plausibly alleged as to Archuleta, Massia, Garcia; service ordered |
| Failure-to-protect | Quijada and others failed to intervene when attack occurred | Some officers had no realistic opportunity to intercede or arrived too late | Claim plausibly alleged as to Quijada (saw incident and could act); dismissed as to Saliewsky, Scharr, John Does 1–5 |
| ADA discrimination | Denial of front-of-line accommodation and related adverse treatment due to disability | No facts plausibly show actions were because of disability; claim untimely | ADA claim dismissed with prejudice as untimely and not plausibly tied to disability |
| Due process (disciplinary hearing) | Hearing officers and officials excluded or ignored plaintiff’s evidence and witnesses | Record contains staff statements supporting the guilty finding; no protected liberty interest shown | Due-process claim dismissed; disciplinary record contains "some evidence," no liberty interest shown |
| First Amendment (access & speech) | Transfer and hearing procedures impeded access to courts and speech | Plaintiff spoke at hearings and filed written appeals; no actual injury or denial of speech | Access and free-speech claims dismissed without leave to amend |
| Supervisor liability | Supervisors/CDCR failed to train/discipline and allowed misconduct | No plausible allegations showing supervisors’ personal participation | Supervisory claims dismissed but granted leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (screening standard for IFP complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must be plausible)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive-force standard: maliciously and sadistically to cause harm)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (force vs. disciplinary need analysis)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (duty to protect inmates)
- Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) ("realistic opportunity" to intercede for failure-to-protect)
- Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1988) (claims must be individualized against each defendant)
- McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of ADA claim)
- Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2015) (ADA statute-of-limitations guidance)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) ("some evidence" standard for disciplinary findings)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (access-to-courts requires showing actual injury to nonfrivolous claim)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison speech balancing test)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (§1915(e)(2) standard aligns with Rule 12(b)(6))
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (screening standards and minimal threshold)