Kelly v. Allen

Background

James Carl Kelly, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, filed a civil-rights action concerning events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had previously been housed. The court reviewed his first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer.

Kelly alleged that he takes medication for a prostate condition that causes him to urinate on himself and develop a rash between his legs. He said that, during a July 28, 2022 visit to a prison clinic, nurse Bivans did not believe that he had seen doctor Yeh the previous day. Kelly also alleged that nurse Gullien, whom he knew from outside prison and whose mother had received marijuana from him, had been targeting him. Kelly said he threw a footrest at Gullien to protect himself, grabbed Gullien, and then grabbed officer Sampolo for support because he could not walk without assistance. According to Kelly, he and Sampolo fell, and Gullien pushed a broom handle between Kelly’s buttocks.

The amended complaint named Warden T. Allen, doctor Micheal Yeh, nurse Patrick Gullien, custody officer Sampolo, nurse Bivans, and psychiatric doctor Howie. The court stated that the amended complaint did not identify any legal causes of action or refer to rights under the federal Constitution or federal law. It also contained no factual allegations about Allen.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. Although complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, they must still provide more than labels, conclusions, or an unsupported assertion that a defendant caused harm.

The court relied on its earlier screening decision, which had found that the broom-handle allegation did not state an Eighth Amendment sexual-abuse or harassment claim. The court had previously explained that such a claim requires sufficiently harmful conduct and an intent to harm. It also described a viable claim as requiring sexual touching or conduct, without a legitimate prison-related justification, for sexual gratification or to humiliate, degrade, or demean the prisoner.

The court concluded that the amended complaint still did not reasonably suggest that Gullien acted for a sexual purpose or to humiliate, degrade, or demean Kelly. Instead, the allegation described a brief act during a chaotic attempt to subdue Kelly after he grabbed Gullien and fell with Sampolo. Because Kelly had already been given an opportunity to amend and had not corrected the identified deficiencies, the court dismissed the potential Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Tigar dismissed the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim and dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against Kelly, terminated all pending motions as moot, and closed the file. The court also stated that the dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).