Geray v. Morrison

Background

Jason Geray, an inmate at California Correctional Institution, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on May 9, 2017, while he was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, he was helping a Spanish-speaking inmate prepare legal papers when Officer Anthony Morrison assaulted him. According to the complaint, Geray was handcuffed and did not resist, but Morrison lost his temper, yelled foul language, and struck Geray with a closed fist at full force on the back of his head. Geray alleged that the assault caused “atypical and significant hardships of trauma.”

Screening analysis

Because Geray was a prisoner seeking relief from a government officer, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At that stage, the court had to identify legally recognizable claims and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but still must contain enough factual allegations to make relief plausible.

The court held that, liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Morrison for excessive force. The court cited the rule that force used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm can violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

A footnote stated that Geray appeared not to have satisfied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement that prisoners exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 action. The footnote also stated that principles requiring federal courts to avoid interference with certain ongoing state proceedings might require abstention. The court did not resolve those issues in this order. It indicated that any exhaustion argument should be raised in a later motion for summary judgment.

Order and effect

The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve the complaint and order on Morrison without prepayment of fees. It also ordered Morrison to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order, or to inform the court if the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. Geray’s opposition would be due 28 days after that filing, and Morrison’s reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. No hearing would be held on the motion.

The court authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave Geray instructions about serving filings, keeping the court informed of address changes, meeting deadlines, and prosecuting the case. The order warned that failure to prosecute could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).

This was an order allowing the claim to proceed past preliminary screening and arranging service; it was not a final decision on whether Morrison used excessive force or was liable. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.