McCurty v. Aguirre

Background

Michael McCurty, a state prisoner incarcerated at California Training Facility, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against state actors for violating federal constitutional or statutory rights. He also invoked supplemental jurisdiction to bring related claims under California law. He sought declaratory relief and monetary damages.

McCurty alleged that on January 11, 2019, Correctional Officer B. Aguirre grabbed his shirt, planted his foot, and drove an elbow into his back after McCurty had placed his hands on a wall during a clothed body search. McCurty alleged that Officers M. Zavala, G. Morales, J. Ibarra, and G. Lopez, and Sergeant C. Woods, II, were present but failed to intervene or report the incident. He also alleged that Lopez and Woods denied his requests for medical care for back pain.

McCurty further alleged that Zavala falsified a property receipt concerning a lighter, threatened to write him a rules-violation report after McCurty said he would file an inmate appeal, and later issued such a report. McCurty also alleged that Zavala moved him and four other African-American inmates out of their housing unit after they allegedly filed grievances.

Screening and Claims

Because McCurty was a prisoner seeking relief from government officials, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court was required to identify claims that were legally cognizable and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought damages from an immune defendant.

Construing the complaint liberally, the court found cognizable: (1) Eighth Amendment excessive-force and deliberate-indifference claims against Aguirre, Zavala, Morales, Ibarra, Lopez, and Woods; and (2) a First Amendment retaliation claim against Zavala. The court also determined that McCurty’s state-law allegations were sufficiently related to the federal claims and stated that it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

The court dismissed without prejudice McCurty’s supervisory-liability claim against Acting Warden C. Koenig because the complaint did not allege that Koenig personally violated McCurty’s rights or had the involvement or knowledge required for supervisory liability under § 1983. The court also dismissed without prejudice the claims against John Doe 1 through 5. It stated that McCurty could seek to amend the complaint if discovery identified those defendants. Finally, the court dismissed without prejudice the claim against Defendant Dustan because the complaint did not link that defendant to the alleged violations.

Order and Next Steps

The court ordered the case to proceed against Aguirre, Zavala, Morales, Ibarra, Lopez, and Woods. It directed the Clerk to send those defendants the lawsuit materials and service-waiver documents. The court ordered the defendants to answer and established a schedule for summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, opposition, and replies. It also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including depositions of confined witnesses.

This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether McCurty ultimately proved his claims. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order on January 16, 2020.