Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Guillermo Nuno, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over events at Pelican Bay State Prison. He filed in the Eastern District of California in February 2026, and the case was transferred to the Northern District in June 2026. He submitted a form complaint (Dkt. No. 2) and, attached to a request to be excused from electronic filing, a separate narrative with exhibits (Dkt. No. 3). Because only one complaint can be operative, the court treated the signed form complaint as the pleading and screened only that document.
The complaint names seven officers. Its allegations, which the court accepted as true only for screening, are that on January 20, 2025, inmates assaulted and robbed Nuno in his living dorm. After he reported the attack to nurses, Speir and Curry allegedly ordered Hamm and Maciel to drag him back to that dorm, despite his warning that he would be attacked again and that it would be a court case. Hamm allegedly threw him to the ground, leaving a scar and redness, while Garcia was present and assisted. Nuno also alleges that Hamm fabricated a rules violation report claiming Nuno kicked him, that Garcia, Maciel, Kammier, and Schmidt submitted reports in Incident Report 101885 in retaliation, and that a later copy had been altered. He seeks punitive, nominal, and compensatory damages.
The Court’s Holding
On filing, the court found good cause to excuse Nuno from General Order No. 76, which requires certain in forma pauperis prisoners at designated CDCR institutions to submit case-initiating documents by email through prison staff. Nuno was housed at California State Prison–Solano when he began the case and is now at California Men's Colony, and neither institution is subject to the order. He may file by postal mail.
Construing the pleading liberally, the court found three cognizable claims. The first is Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to inmate safety against Speir, Curry, Hamm, Maciel, and Garcia for returning Nuno to the dorm right after the attack. The second is Eighth Amendment excessive force against Hamm and Maciel, and against Garcia for allegedly standing by. The third is First Amendment retaliation against Hamm for the allegedly false report. These are threshold determinations that the allegations suffice to proceed, not findings that misconduct occurred.
The court dismissed the retaliation claim against Garcia, Maciel, Kammier, and Schmidt because it was unclear how the incident reports, or the later altered copy, were adverse to Nuno. It granted leave to amend within 28 days. An amended complaint must contain every claim and defendant, including those already found cognizable, and cannot incorporate the earlier complaint. If none is filed, the case proceeds only on the cognizable claims. Kammier and Schmidt were dismissed from the action at this time because no cognizable claim remains against them. Service on the other five officers was ordered through CDCR's e-service program, with a dispositive motion due in 91 days, opposition 28 days later, and reply 14 days after that.
Key Takeaways
- General Order No. 76's electronic-filing duty depends on the prisoner's institution, and a plaintiff at a non-designated facility may be excused for good cause and file by mail.
- The court will screen only one operative complaint and will not piece together claims from separate filings, so a prisoner who wants attachments considered must file a single amended complaint.
- Allegations that officers returned an inmate to the place of a recent attack, used excessive force, and falsified a report to retaliate were enough to proceed at screening.
- The retaliation claim against four officers was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to explain how the reports were adverse, so it is not a final judgment.
- Any dispositive motion must come with a Rand notice, and a failure-to-exhaust defense must be raised by summary judgment motion.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court screening order and carries no precedential weight. It applies settled standards, citing Farmer, Hudson, and Rhodes, at the pleading stage, and it shows how this district handles early prisoner cases: screening, excusal from GO 76, CDCR e-service, and an early dispositive-motion schedule.
Much remains open. Nuno may or may not amend the retaliation claim against the four officers. Defendants may raise exhaustion, and the merits of every surviving claim are untested pending summary judgment.