Rael

Rael v. Pantoja

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 27, 20201:20-cv-01932California1,663 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

18 Joseph Rael, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad (CTF-Soledad), filed 19 this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He consented to proceed before a 20 magistrate judge. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)1 His complaint is now before the court for review. This order 21 finds that the complaint states a cognizable claim and orders service of process on the two 22 defendants. 23

STATEMENT

24 Mr. Rael alleges the following in his complaint: On April 13, 2018, correctional officer (C/O) 25 Guerra refused to let Mr. Rael go to a prison job. Mr. Rael told C/O Guerra that he would submit a 26 27 1 Citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the ECF-generated 1 staff complaint against C/O Guerra. Later that day, C/O Guerra was compelled to let Mr. Rael go 2 to the job assignment, and Mr. Rael again told C/O Guerra he would file a complaint. A few days 3 later, on April 17, 2018, C/O Perez-Pantoja asked if Mr. Rael had said to C/O Guerra that Mr. 4 Rael would “write him up” and Mr. Rael responded that it had nothing to with C/O Perez-Pantoja, 5 who then suggested that it would be bad if the…

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.