Penunuri v. Davis

Background

Richard Penunuri alleged that on October 8, 2018, San Quentin State Prison guards R. Alba, L. Gunn, J. Smith, L. Melgoza, Lt. M. Nelson, Sgt. T. Tran, and O. Smith used excessive force against him or assisted others in doing so. Materials attached to the complaint indicated that the allegations arose from a cell extraction after Penunuri allegedly covered his cell door, preventing staff from conducting security checks. The materials also stated that another prison guard, V. Porch, video-recorded the incident.

Penunuri also sued warden Ron Davis. The complaint alleged that Davis appointed O. Smith as the administrative officer of the day, but it did not indicate that Davis had personal knowledge of or involvement in the alleged violations.

Screening and Claims

Because Penunuri sought relief from government employees while incarcerated, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found that, when read liberally, the complaint stated Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against Alba, Gunn, J. Smith, Melgoza, Nelson, Tran, and O. Smith. These were claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority.

The court dismissed all other claims. It specifically dismissed the claims against Davis because appointing O. Smith as the administrative officer of the day was not enough to establish Davis’s liability. The court explained that § 1983 does not automatically hold a supervisor responsible for an employee’s alleged misconduct based only on the supervisory relationship.

Order

The court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and directed the United States Marshal to serve the complaint, its attachments, and the order on the seven guards without requiring Penunuri to pay service fees. The Clerk was also directed to terminate Ron Davis as a defendant and to correct the docket to identify “D. Smith” as “O. Smith.”

The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable by May 18, 2020. The order specified that any exhaustion challenge based on failure to use available prison grievance procedures had to be brought as a summary-judgment motion. It also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and required production of incident-related reports, investigations, rule-violation reports, and video recordings when applicable.

Judge William H. Orrick’s order was a screening and case-management order. It identified claims that could proceed and dismissed claims against Davis, but it did not decide whether the guards actually used excessive force.