Scott v. Madsen
- Alex Tse
- 3:26-cv-03133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Kenneth Scott v. H. Madsen, Judge Tse found three constitutional claims cognizable, ordered service, and denied Scott’s request for appointed counsel.
Kenneth Scott, Correctional Officers A. Rivera, H. Madsen, and C. Moore, and the California prison and court officials responsible for service and the next litigation steps.
What happened
In Kenneth Scott v. H. Madsen, et al., Kenneth Scott alleges that correctional officer A. Rivera used excessive force and sexually assaulted him during a body search at CTF-Soledad. He also alleges that H. Madsen failed to intervene and that C. Moore retaliated after Scott threatened to file a grievance.
After screening the complaint, the court found that Scott stated claims that could proceed against Rivera, Madsen, and Moore. The court ordered that the complaint be served and directed the defendants to answer and file a summary-judgment motion or another case-ending motion by January 4, 2027.
Judge Alex G. Tse denied Scott’s request for appointed counsel because Scott had not shown extraordinary circumstances and had presented his claims clearly. The case was not finally decided; it will proceed on the claims the court found sufficient at this stage.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Madsen · No. 3:26-cv-03133
- Alex Tse
- Aug. 27, 2026
Background
Kenneth Scott filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The court reviewed the complaint under the required screening rules for a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officers. The opinion describes Scott as representing himself.
Scott alleges that on September 8, 2024, at CTF-Soledad, Correctional Officer A. Rivera conducted an aggressive body search, squeezed Scott’s testicles, and used excessive force. Scott alleges that Officer H. Madsen was present but refused to intervene, saying, “She’ll be over with you soon!” Scott then said he would file a grievance about the search and alleged sexual assault. Scott alleges that another guard, C. Moore, responded, “I’m taking this bag of food since you’re going to write my partners up.”
Screening Rulings
The court found the following claims sufficient to proceed:
- An Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Rivera, including the sexual-assault allegations. - An Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Madsen. - A First Amendment retaliation claim against Moore.
The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on Rivera, Madsen, and Moore. It directed the defendants to respond, file an answer, and, by January 4, 2027, file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable. A dispositive motion is a motion seeking a ruling that could resolve the claims or case. The court also set deadlines for Scott’s opposition and the defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would occur unless the court later ordered one.
Appointment of Counsel
Scott moved for appointed counsel. The court DENIED that motion because Scott had not shown extraordinary circumstances. The court stated that the case did not present complex legal issues and that Scott had prosecuted the action capably by presenting his claims clearly.
Disposition and Classification
The order screened the complaint, allowed the identified claims to proceed at this stage, ordered service, established further case deadlines, and DENIED Scott’s motion for appointment of counsel. It did not decide whether Scott will ultimately prevail on the claims. The order is classified as a procedural order because it concerns prisoner-complaint screening, service, case management, and appointment of counsel rather than a final decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.