Barksdale v. Smith

Background

Kenneth D. Barksdale, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. The court allowed claims to proceed against Sgt. Rippberger and unidentified officers, while dismissing other deficient claims after Barksdale did not timely amend his complaint.

Barksdale alleged that on May 25, 2023, an unidentified officer entered his cell, battered him, and used force against him. He also alleged that other officers were present and failed to intervene. Barksdale claimed that Rippberger was involved in the incident or failed to stop it. Rippberger stated that he responded to Barksdale’s cell after receiving a report of an unresponsive inmate, found Barksdale awake, and ordered him to lie on his bed and be handcuffed. Rippberger said Barksdale complied, exited the cell on his own, and was taken for medical care. Rippberger also stated that he did not use force, did not see the other officer use force, and did not remember other officers being present.

Medical records showed that Barksdale had been treated at a hospital on May 23 and 24, 2023, after reporting a fall that caused a head injury and a broken nose. Medical staff evaluated him three times on May 25. The records stated that no visible injuries were found after the alleged assault. Barksdale said that video and witnesses would support his claim, but he could not identify the witnesses, and the evidence submitted by the defense stated that the facility did not have video surveillance when the incident allegedly occurred.

Summary-judgment ruling

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Barksdale and did not rely solely on the absence of documented injuries. It held instead that the evidence did not show the required subjective knowledge for Barksdale’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim.

A prison official may be liable for failing to intervene when present during another official’s use of excessive force. The official must know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm. The court concluded that Rippberger’s account showed that he observed Barksdale complying with orders and did not observe excessive force. Because there was no evidence that Rippberger knew of a substantial risk to Barksdale’s safety, the court held that Barksdale could not prove deliberate indifference. Barksdale filed no opposition to the motion and did not provide evidence from which a jury could reasonably rule in his favor.

Doe defendants

The court had previously directed Barksdale to identify the John Doe defendants and file a motion substituting their proper names within 56 days. The court had warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against them for failure to state a claim for relief. Barksdale did not identify the defendants.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant W. Rippberger’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed the failure-to-protect claim against Rippberger with prejudice. It also dismissed the remaining claims against the Doe defendants for failure to state a claim for relief because Barksdale had not identified the proper defendants. The order terminated Docket No. 28.