Keeton v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

Tommy Keeton brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that correctional officers T. Deslaurier-Rixman, Juan Mora, and Jose Gil-Rojas used excessive force against him during a cell extraction at Salinas Valley State Prison in October 2021. He also alleged that supervisor Elizabeth Gonzalez saw the force and failed to intervene. Keeton further alleged that Deslaurier-Rixman filed a false Rules Violation Report in retaliation for an administrative appeal and that this violated his First Amendment and due-process rights.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing initially that Keeton had not exhausted his available prison grievance remedies. The court also considered whether the undisputed facts established that Keeton received adequate procedural protections during the disciplinary hearing related to the report.

Exhaustion and Claims Against Mora, Gil-Rojas, and Gonzalez

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to complete available administrative remedies before bringing certain claims about prison conditions. The court found that Keeton filed three grievances related to his allegations, but only grievance No. 183113 reached the Office of Appeals and was exhausted.

That grievance alleged excessive force by Deslaurier-Rixman but did not name Mora, Gil-Rojas, or Gonzalez, describe them, or indicate that anyone else was present. The court explained that the applicable prison regulations required Keeton to provide the names or descriptions of involved staff members. The court rejected Keeton’s explanation that he did not know the others’ names because he testified that he knew Gonzalez at the time and, after learning the others’ names, did not file an amended grievance.

The court therefore granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion for Mora, Gil-Rojas, and Gonzalez on all claims.

Due-Process Claims Against Deslaurier-Rixman

Keeton claimed that the allegedly false disciplinary report violated due process. The court held that this claim depended on whether Keeton received adequate procedural protections at the later disciplinary hearing.

The court applied the requirements that an inmate receive advance written notice of the charges, an opportunity to call witnesses and present a defense when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, and a written statement explaining the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary decision. The decision also had to be supported by some evidence.

The court found no genuine dispute about these requirements. Keeton received notice, had an opportunity to call witnesses and present a defense, and submitted a written statement. The factfinder issued a written decision and relied on incident reports as evidence. The court therefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the due-process claims against Deslaurier-Rixman.

Remaining Claims and Other Motions

The First Amendment retaliation and excessive-force claims against Deslaurier-Rixman remain. The court did not decide those claims in this order. It stated that either party could file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing them by July 14, 2025. Any opposition would be due 45 days after the motion, and any reply would be due 15 days after the opposition.

The order also denied Keeton’s sixth motion for appointment of counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances, his filings were clear, and the case did not present complex legal issues. The court denied his motion to continue summary judgment because the evidence was sufficient to decide the exhaustion issue and the due-process claims. The court granted his motion for leave to file exhibits. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions.