Kelly v. Allen

Background

James Carl Kelly, an inmate at California State Prison—Sacramento, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The complaint concerned events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where Kelly had previously been housed.

The court had earlier denied Kelly permission to proceed without paying the filing fee under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, required him to pay the fee in full, dismissed the action for failure to pay, and entered judgment. Kelly appealed. On December 20, 2023, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had erred in relying on the identified prior cases to find three strikes, vacated the prior orders and judgment, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

The Complaint

The complaint named Warden T. Allen; doctor Micheal Yeh; nurses Patrick Gullien and Bivans; custody officer Sampolo; psychiatric doctor Howie; D3 Facility floor officer R. Carrillo; Investigative Service Unit officers B. Duran, A. Franco, and R. Salgado; and officers T. Des Laurier, L. Hernandez, Martinez, and J. Parks.

Kelly alleged that Gullien assaulted him on November 23, 2021, when he called for help because of chest pains. He also alleged that Gullien assaulted him during a July 28, 2022 medical appointment, including by striking him with a pen and later hitting him with a broom handle and pushing the handle between his buttocks. Kelly alleged that other officers restrained him, kicked or hit him, failed to intervene, and that Howie denied his requests to see a doctor and prison-rape-prevention staff. He also alleged that he was falsely accused of battering Gullien and Sampolo.

Screening and Analysis

Because a prisoner seeks relief from governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is an early review to identify claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court found that the complaint did not state a claim against Allen, Carrillo, Duran, Franco, Salgado, Des Laurier, Hernandez, Martinez, or Parks because it did not refer to them or allege what they did. Although the complaint referred to Yeh and Bivans, it did not allege that either violated Kelly’s constitutional rights.

The court liberally construed the complaint as attempting to assert Eighth Amendment claims for sexual abuse or harassment and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It concluded that the allegations against Gullien did not, as pleaded, show that the broom-handle incident was intended to sexually assault Kelly, provide sexual gratification, or humiliate, degrade, or demean him. The court noted that additional facts might support such a claim.

The court also found no sexual-abuse or sexual-harassment claim against Sampolo because Kelly did not allege that Sampolo touched him sexually or knew that Gullien was touching him sexually and allowed it. The court found no deliberate-indifference claim against Howie because Kelly did not allege injuries or concerns from the July 28 incident that required a doctor’s attention and acknowledged being seen by a nurse.

Ruling and Required Next Steps

The court vacated the May 25, 2023 order denying Kelly permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the August 2, 2023 order denying reconsideration and dismissing the action for failure to pay the filing fee, and the August 2, 2023 judgment. It directed the Clerk to reopen the action.

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Kelly leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was due within 28 days of the order and had to identify each wrongful act, when it occurred, what happened, which defendant was involved, and which federal law or constitutional provision was allegedly violated. The order states that the amended complaint would replace the prior complaint and that failure to file it as required would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.