Rhodes v. Ford
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-03128
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Rhodes v. Ford, Judge Hamilton allowed some prisoner retaliation and safety claims to proceed but dismissed other claims and defendants.
Kavin Maurice Rhodes and the prison officials named in the amended complaint. The identified retaliation and failure-to-protect claims proceed, while other claims and defendants were dismissed at screening.
What happened
Kavin Maurice Rhodes, a state prisoner representing himself, filed an amended civil-rights complaint against prison officials under a federal law that allows suits for constitutional violations. He alleged that officials retaliated against him for filing complaints, appeals, and a federal petition, and failed to protect him from attacks by other prisoners.
The court found enough detail for several retaliation and safety claims to proceed, including allegations involving legal copies, confiscated papers, false disciplinary reports, threats, searches, cell assignments, broken property, and assaults. The court found no constitutional claim based only on mishandling a prison appeal and dismissed defendants whose alleged involvement was not adequately connected to particular claims.
The case will proceed against the claims and defendants identified in the order, while all other claims and defendants were dismissed. Judge Hamilton ordered service of the amended complaint and set deadlines for defendants’ motions and for Rhodes’s response.
The detailed version
- Rhodes v. Ford · No. 4:20-cv-03128
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 30, 2020
Background
Kavin Maurice Rhodes, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint had been dismissed with permission to amend. The order concerned the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint, not a final decision on whether Rhodes would ultimately win his claims.
Legal standards
The court explained that prisoner complaints must be screened and that claims must be dismissed if they are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by someone acting under state law.
For First Amendment retaliation, the court said a prisoner must allege protected activity, an adverse action taken because of that activity, a chilling effect on the prisoner’s rights, and the absence of a legitimate correctional purpose. For failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment, the alleged danger must be sufficiently serious, and the official must know about and disregard an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.
Claims allowed to proceed
The court found cognizable, meaning legally sufficient at the screening stage, the following allegations:
- Rhodes alleged that D. Ford and Wendy Reynolds restricted his legal copies because he would not dismiss a federal petition. - Rhodes alleged that D. Ford and B. Buckhorn confiscated his legal papers and filed a false disciplinary report after he refused to withdraw a prison appeal. - Rhodes alleged that Foulknier and Bond retaliated after he filed complaints, including by ordering him to strip to his underwear and telling nearby prisoners to deal with him. - Rhodes alleged that D. Ford and B. Buckhorn arranged for other prisoners to assault him by manipulating the prison computer system and pointing him out to those prisoners. - Rhodes alleged that M. Markel, D. Lunsford, and K. Royal retaliated through cell-assignment, classification, and lockdown-related actions after he filed complaints. - Rhodes alleged that A. Corder threatened to place him with a prisoner who had COVID-19 unless he dismissed his federal petition and then caused a disciplinary report to be filed when he refused. - Rhodes alleged that D. Chapa fabricated a disciplinary report because Rhodes would not withdraw an appeal. - Rhodes alleged that D. Chapa and Hamm broke his typewriter because he filed appeals, and that Chapa arranged for a gang member to be moved near him, after which the prisoner attacked him. The court found retaliation claims against both officials and a failure-to-protect claim against Chapa. - Rhodes alleged that Perner fabricated a disciplinary report because he refused to dismiss his federal petition. - Rhodes alleged that Perner tried to make him withdraw an appeal and brought another prisoner to threaten him when he refused.
Claims and defendants dismissed
The court held that Rhodes could not proceed against Lunsford based on the alleged improper screening of a prison appeal because there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance or appeal system. The court also dismissed defendants whom Rhodes had not adequately linked to the alleged constitutional violations in several claims. The order states that the case proceeds against the defendants and claims identified above and that all other defendants and claims are dismissed. It does not state that these dismissals were with or without prejudice.
Case management and ruling
The clerk was ordered to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was ordered to serve the amended complaint and the order without requiring advance payment of fees. Defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 60 days after service, and Rhodes was given 30 days to respond after such a motion was served. The court also authorized discovery under the federal rules and warned that failing to prosecute the case or keep the court informed of an address change could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Hamilton entered the order of service on October 29, 2020.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.