Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marlon Shelmon, a California prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three officials at the California Training Facility (CTF): F. Lee, O. Yasin, and M. Deverick. He consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). His application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted in a separate order that is not part of this document. Because he is a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which calls for dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant.
The order recites Shelmon's allegations, which the court accepted for screening purposes and did not find to be true. He alleges that CTF housing units, including his cell, had missing windowpanes between October 2025 and January 2026, letting in sub-freezing temperatures that caused him illness, shoulder pain, and discomfort. He alleges defendants knew of the problem but did not fix the windows and forbade inmates from using curtains or other coverings against the cold. He alleges his window was repaired in January 2026 after an administrative grievance. He seeks damages and injunctive relief tied to the period when panes were missing.
The Court’s Holding
Construing the pro se complaint liberally and applying the Rule 8 and Twombly plausibility standards, the court concluded that Shelmon's allegations state plausible Eighth Amendment claims against the defendants. Citing Farmer v. Brennan, it explained that deliberate indifference by prison officials to a dangerous condition posing an excessive risk to inmate health or safety violates the Eighth Amendment. The analysis is brief. The court did not separately discuss each defendant's role or address the injunctive-relief request, and it did not decide whether the allegations are true or provable.
This is neither a dismissal nor a final judgment, since the complaint goes forward. The Clerk is to email CDCR the complaint, a consent form, the order, a Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons. Within 40 days of that email, CDCR must report which defendants will waive service and which declined or could not be reached. The Attorney General's Office must then file waivers within 21 days for those waiving, and the Clerk will prepare U.S. Marshals Service forms for the rest. Defendants must file the consent form and an answer.
If the parties wish to move for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, it is due by January 8, 2027, with opposition by February 5, 2027 and reply by February 19, 2027. The motion is deemed submitted on the reply date without a hearing unless the court orders one. Defendants must serve a Rand v. Rowland notice with any summary judgment motion, and must tell the court beforehand if they think the case cannot be resolved that way. Discovery may begin under the Federal Rules without further court order.
Key Takeaways
- A § 1915A screening order decides only that the allegations are plausible. The court made no finding that windowpanes were missing, that the cell was dangerously cold, or that any defendant knew of it.
- The court treated allegations of missing windowpanes, sub-freezing cell temperatures, official knowledge, and a ban on window coverings as enough to plead Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference.
- Service runs through CDCR's e-service program, with a 40-day reporting deadline for CDCR and a 21-day waiver-filing deadline for the Attorney General's Office.
- Any dispositive motion is due January 8, 2027, opposition February 5, 2027, and reply February 19, 2027, and Defendants must serve the Rand notice with a summary judgment motion.
- The order is an unreported, case-specific district court ruling that carries no precedential weight.
Why It Matters
This is a routine example of how Northern District of California magistrate judges screen prisoner conditions-of-confinement claims. It offers a short Farmer v. Brennan analysis, followed by service through CDCR's e-service program and an early dispositive-motion schedule. Nothing has been decided on the merits.
Defendants may still contest the claims by answer or summary judgment. Open questions include whether the alleged cold exposure was objectively serious, whether each defendant knew of and disregarded it, and whether injunctive relief remains available given the alleged January 2026 repair.