Khan v. Presley

Background

Muhammad Khan, identified as a state parolee, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at the Correctional Training Facility, where he had previously been housed. He alleged that Defendant Presley released him for a medical appointment, then trashed his cell and scattered his property and legal papers after Khan returned. Khan alleged that Presley retaliated against him for filing grievances and for taking time to get ready because of a mobility impairment. He also alleged disability discrimination and a First Amendment violation.

Khan further alleged that Presley assaulted him, causing personal injury; that he was not allowed to sit or use a bathroom in a holding cell; and that officials placed him in administrative segregation. He alleged retaliation, a cover-up, and due-process violations during a later administrative-segregation retention hearing. He claimed that he was denied witnesses and documentary evidence and that Defendant Bojorquez was not impartial. He sought damages.

Khan’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee was on the wrong form because he was no longer incarcerated. The court directed that he receive an application for people who are not prisoners.

Court’s Analysis

The court conducted the preliminary screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee. Although pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, the court concluded that Khan’s allegations were insufficient to state a legally recognizable claim.

For the First Amendment retaliation allegations, the court said Khan did not provide enough facts showing that any named defendant took adverse action because he engaged in protected conduct, that the action chilled his exercise of First Amendment rights, or that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court specifically found that his allegation that Presley trashed his cell was speculative and conclusory and that he did not explain how he knew Presley acted because of Khan’s grievances.

As to the alleged assault, the court explained that an excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment requires facts showing that the force was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. The court found that Khan needed to provide more facts, particularly because he acknowledged that a rules-violation report accused him of being the aggressor.

The court also rejected the due-process allegations concerning the administrative-segregation retention hearing as insufficient. It explained that due process required an informal, nonadversarial hearing within a reasonable time, notice of the reasons for segregation, and an opportunity for the prisoner to present his views. It did not require detailed written notice, representation by counsel, witnesses, documentary evidence, a written decision explaining the placement, or disclosure of the identity of an information source. The court therefore found that Khan was not entitled to witnesses or documentary evidence under the cited standard.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Khan to file an amended complaint using the court’s form within 28 days after the order was filed. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.

The court stated that failing to file an amended complaint as ordered would result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. It also ordered Khan to file the non-prisoner fee application within 28 days. Failure to file that application would result in dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.