Lucero

Lucero v. Arce

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 17, 20253:24-cv-07510California2,880 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

BACKGROUND

24 Plaintiff alleges on July 24, 2024, he “was trying to ask for help in regards to his safety 25 concerns” when unnamed “Doe” defendants searched him, “grabbed his genitals,” and punched 26 and choked him. (Id. at 5 ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiff is disabled, uses a walker, is in the prison’s 27 “enhanced outpatient program,” and at the time of the alleged assault, was in waist restraints. (Id. at 5 ¶ 21.) After the incident, Plaintiff suffered a “mild heart attack” and was taken to a hospital. (Id.) Plaintiff informed Defendant Dr. Mendez, a psychologist, that he was suicidal. (Id. at 5-6 ¶ 22.) As he had previously attempted suicide, prison regulations required his placement in a “crisis bed.” (Id.) However, Dr. Mendez has “a well known history of not complying with these regulations,” and he refused to authorize a crisis bed for Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants Ying Sun and Josh Jugum were responsible for prison regulations, and they “failed to correct” the regulations regarding suicide prevention. (Id. at 3 ⁋ 11.) Plaintiff alleges “defendants” instead moved him to administrative segregation pending an 9…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.