Sir Michael Dyess v. Saleem
- Thompson
- 3:24-cv-08608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Dyess v. Saleem, Judge Thompson reopened a prisoner’s civil-rights case, allowed service on three defendants, and dismissed the Doe nurse.
Sir Michael Dyess’s case was reopened. Claims against Dr. Saleem and two unidentified correctional officers proceed to service, while the claim against the unidentified nurse was dismissed.
What happened
Sir Michael Dyess sued Dr. Saleem and other medical and correctional personnel, alleging that he was involuntarily medicated, restrained with excessive force, and given an injection despite medication allergies. He also alleged that Dr. Saleem made a false statement in a state-court petition.
The court had previously dismissed the case because Dyess had not filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. After he filed that application, the court vacated the earlier judgment and reopened the case. It found a legally sufficient claim against Dr. Saleem concerning involuntary medication and ordered service on Dr. Saleem and the two correctional officers who allegedly helped administer the medication. The court dismissed the unidentified nurse because the allegations amounted at most to negligence.
Judge Rina L. Thompson set procedures for service, defendants’ responses, discovery, and later dispositive motions. The order did not decide whether Dyess ultimately proved his claims.
The detailed version
- Sir Michael Dyess v. Saleem · No. 3:24-cv-08608
- Thompson
- July 10, 2025
Background
Sir Michael Dyess, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Dr. Saleem subjected him to involuntary medication and made a false claim about him in a state-court petition for involuntary medication. Dyess also alleged that two unidentified correctional officers used excessive force while restraining him for the medication and that an unidentified nurse injected him without knowing about his medication allergies or possible side effects.
Dyess sought damages and an injunction against involuntary medication and requested release from prison. The court had previously dismissed the action because Dyess had not filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. He later filed that application, which the court said would be granted in a separate order.
Screening and Claims
Federal law requires the court to screen a prisoner’s complaint against governmental entities, officers, or employees. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, although they still must provide enough factual information to give defendants fair notice of the claims.
The court stated that a claim under Section 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority. Applying that standard, the court found that Dyess stated a legally sufficient due-process claim against Dr. Saleem for involuntary medication. The court also ordered service on the two unidentified correctional officers who allegedly assisted with the involuntary medication on September 15, 2024.
The court dismissed the unidentified nurse because Dyess’s allegations against the nurse amounted at most to negligence and did not state a constitutional claim.
Disposition and Case Management
The court ordered the Clerk to vacate the prior judgment and reopen the case. It ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program on Dr. Saleem and the two correctional officers. It established procedures for service waivers, answers, summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, briefing, and discovery.
The order advised the parties about possible motions concerning failure to exhaust available prison administrative remedies and explained the deadlines and evidentiary requirements for opposing summary judgment. These instructions concern the future handling of the case; they do not resolve the ultimate merits of Dyess’s remaining claims. Judge Rina L. Thompson entered the order dated July 9, 2025.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.