Leavy v. Oseguera

Background

Carnell A. Leavy, who was in custody at High Desert State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Correctional Officers J. Oseguera and Grimes, Correctional Sergeant Tran, and John Does #1 and #2 in their individual and official capacities. He sought monetary and punitive damages based on an incident at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, where he was previously incarcerated.

Leavy alleges that on June 24, 2024, John Doe #1 stopped him at a checkpoint and told him that personal clothing was not allowed on the yard because of an attempted contraband-smuggling incident. After Leavy argued with Doe #1, Doe #1 allegedly threw Leavy’s beanie and clothing to the ground, used profanity, refused to pick up the clothing, and denied Leavy access to the yard. Officers then returned Leavy to his cell and opened the tray slot to remove his handcuffs. Leavy alleges that, after he tried to pull the handcuffs into his cell and then put his right hand out to relinquish them, John Doe #2 struck his right hand and wrist three or four times with a baton. He alleges that this caused bloody cuts, pain, and a lasting lump on his hand. He was treated medically and transferred to High Desert State Prison the next day.

Leavy alleged that John Doe #2 used excessive force and that Doe #1, Tran, Grimes, and Oseguera failed to intervene. He also alleged that the officers refused to identify the Doe defendants. The opinion states that Leavy referred in the complaint to another officer whose name was difficult to decipher, but that officer was not named as a defendant and was not considered a defendant at this stage.

Screening and Claims

Because Leavy sought relief from governmental officers, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify legally recognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

Applying the Eighth Amendment standard for excessive force, the court held that the complaint stated a cognizable claim against John Doe #2. The court also held that the complaint stated cognizable failure-to-intervene claims against John Doe #1, Tran, Grimes, and Oseguera. A claim is “cognizable” at this stage when the allegations are sufficient for the case to proceed past initial screening; the court did not make a final decision about liability.

The court allowed Leavy to use discovery to try to learn the identities of John Does #1 and #2. It ordered him to provide their names by the deadline set for any served defendant to file a dispositive motion. If he does not do so, the Doe defendants will be dismissed without prejudice to Leavy filing a new action against them.

Rulings and Case Schedule

The court denied without prejudice Leavy’s motion asking for an order directing High Desert State Prison to stop obstructing his access to court. The court stated that the Eastern District of California was the proper venue for claims challenging conditions at that prison.

The court ordered service of the complaint on Correctional Officers Grimes and J. Oseguera and Correctional Sergeant Tran at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. It directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with formal service through the United States Marshals Service if necessary. The defendants must answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order set deadlines for dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment and, where appropriate, motions based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It also allowed discovery under the federal rules, required Leavy to serve copies of his communications on the defendants or their counsel, and required him to keep the court informed of address changes. The order terminated Docket No. 5.