Khan v. Perez Pantoja

Background

Muhammad Khan, identified as a state parolee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events at the Correctional Training Facility, where he had previously been housed. He alleged that Defendant Perez Pantoja searched his cell, broke the cell window and his continuous positive airway pressure machine, issued or threatened repeated disciplinary infractions, and retaliated against him for filing grievances. Khan also alleged that Pantoja sexually assaulted him in March 2021. He claimed that Warden Koenig knew about Pantoja’s misconduct and failed to prevent the assault. Khan sought damages.

Khan also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, but the court found that he used the prisoner form even though he was no longer incarcerated. The court directed the Clerk to provide a non-prisoner application.

Screening and Claims

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s action against a governmental entity or officer. The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant. It also noted that claims filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

The court found that the retaliation allegations against Perez Pantoja, Warden Koenig, and Gonzalez alleged adverse action, protected conduct, and a connection between the two, but did not allege that the conduct chilled Khan’s exercise of First Amendment rights or that the conduct lacked a legitimate correctional purpose.

The court found that the sexual-assault allegations against Perez Pantoja did not state a claim because they did not allege that he acted for sexual gratification or to humiliate, degrade, or demean Khan, and did not describe the harm Khan suffered from the incident.

The court also found that the allegations about the broken window and continuous positive airway pressure machine did not describe an objectively serious enough deprivation to support an Eighth Amendment claim. As to Warden Koenig, the court found that the complaint said Koenig was informed of the assault afterward, but did not allege that Koenig knew beforehand of a substantial risk of serious harm to Khan. The court also found that the existence of several complaints against Perez Pantoja was not enough, by itself, to establish that risk.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Khan to file an amended complaint on the court’s form within 28 days from the filing of the order. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number in the order and include the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and that claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.

The court further ordered Khan to file a completed non-prisoner fee-waiver application within 28 days. It stated that failure to file the amended complaint as ordered would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim, while failure to file the fee application would result in dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee.

Judge

The order was signed by United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman.