Khan v. Presley

Background

Muhammad Khan, identified as a state parolee, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged events at the Correctional Training Facility, where he was formerly housed. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority.

The court had previously dismissed Khan’s original complaint with leave to amend and directed him to submit a non-prisoner application to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront. Khan then sought more time, filed an amended complaint, and submitted the application. The court granted the extension request and screened the amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute.

Claims and analysis

Khan alleged that, on or about October 5, 2020, Presley entered and damaged or disturbed his cell after Khan took longer to prepare for an appointment. Khan said he was mobility impaired and wore an identifying vest. He alleged that Andrade participated in the incident and that the cell was left with property, including legal papers, scattered around.

Khan also alleged that he was held in a holding cell and denied the ability to sit or use a restroom for the entire period. The court held that these allegations did not provide enough information about the duration of the deprivation or identify the responsible defendant. Because the seriousness of an Eighth Amendment deprivation depends in part on its circumstances, nature, and duration, the court allowed Khan to amend this claim.

Khan alleged that he was placed in administrative segregation and that Borjorquez, the hearing officer, denied him witnesses, documentary evidence, and a fair and impartial hearing. The court explained that the required process for administrative segregation did not include a right to present witnesses or documentary evidence. The court also found that Khan had not adequately shown that Borjorquez was not impartial. It dismissed this due-process claim because Khan had already had an opportunity to amend it and had not corrected its deficiencies.

Khan alleged that Presley and Andrade retaliated against him because of his disability and because he took too long to get ready. The court found that these allegations did not connect the actions to protected First Amendment conduct. As to Borjorquez, the court found Khan’s allegation that Borjorquez retaliated for grievances conclusory and unsupported by an allegation that Borjorquez knew about the grievances before the hearing. The court also found insufficient allegations that the defendants’ actions chilled Khan’s First Amendment activity or lacked a legitimate correctional purpose. It dismissed the retaliation claim.

Khan also referred to Presley having “beat[en]” him. The court found that he still had not described the circumstances of Presley’s conduct sufficiently to show that force was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. The court dismissed the excessive-force claim.

Order

The court ordered that the retaliation claim against all named defendants, the due-process claim against Borjorquez, and the excessive-force claim against Presley were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Khan may not include those claims in his second amended complaint.

The court ordered that the Eighth Amendment claim concerning the alleged holding-cell deprivations was dismissed with leave to amend. Khan was given 28 days from the filing date of the order to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint will replace the earlier complaints, and claims or defendants omitted from it will no longer be part of the action. The court warned that failure to file the second amended complaint as ordered will result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim. The court also granted Khan’s extension request and granted leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront.