Rhodes v. Ford

Background

Kavin Maurice Rhodes, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to sue someone acting under state authority for violating rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. The original complaint had been dismissed with permission to amend.

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint against governmental officials. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual content to make a claim plausible, while construing a self-represented prisoner’s allegations liberally.

Claims the Court Allowed to Proceed

The court identified ten groups of allegations, principally involving retaliation for protected activity and failure to protect Rhodes from other prisoners:

1. Rhodes alleged that, on December 13, 2019, D. Ford said litigation coordinator Wendy Reynolds had directed that Rhodes receive no more legal copies because of prison regulations and wanted him to dismiss his federal petition. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim against Ford and Reynolds.

2. Rhodes alleged that, on December 26, 2019, Ford and B. Buckhorn tried to make him withdraw an inmate appeal, then confiscated his legal papers and filed a false rules-violation report when he refused. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim against Ford and Buckhorn.

3. Rhodes alleged that an additional appeal was improperly screened out by D. Lunsford and that, on January 22, 2020, Foulknier and Bond ordered him to strip to his underwear and told nearby prisoners that they should deal with him because he had filed complaints about library staff. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim against Foulknier and Bond. It dismissed the claim against Lunsford because the opinion states that there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system.

4. Rhodes alleged that, on January 28, 2020, Ford and Buckhorn manipulated a computer system to place him at the library at a particular time, where Ford pointed him out to prisoners who attacked him. The court found potentially valid retaliation and failure-to-protect claims against Ford and Buckhorn.

5. Rhodes alleged that M. Markel threatened to double-cell him if he continued filing complaints, had him taken to classification where he was denied a transfer and falsely labeled a gang member, and that Lunsford, Markel, and K. Royal told prisoners that a lockdown was occurring because of his complaints. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim against Lunsford, Markel, and Royal. It dismissed the claim against other defendants because Rhodes had not adequately connected them to the alleged constitutional violation.

6. Rhodes alleged that A. Corder threatened to house him with a prisoner with COVID-19 unless he dismissed his federal petition, and that a rules-violation report was filed after he refused. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim based on this allegation. The supplied text also contains an incomplete sentence stating that a defendant was dismissed from this claim, but it does not clearly identify that defendant.

7. Rhodes alleged that D. Chapa fabricated a rules-violation report in retaliation for his refusal to withdraw an appeal. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim against Chapa and dismissed the claim against other defendants not adequately linked to the alleged violation.

8. Rhodes alleged that Chapa and Hamm broke his typewriter because he had filed appeals, and that Chapa arranged for a gang member to be moved near him, who later attacked him. The court found potentially valid retaliation claims against Chapa and Hamm and a potentially valid failure-to-protect claim against Chapa. It dismissed claims against other defendants not adequately linked to the alleged violations.

9. Rhodes alleged that A. Perner fabricated a rules-violation report on August 28, 2020, because he refused to dismiss his federal petition. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim against Perner.

10. Rhodes alleged that, on September 1, 2020, Perner tried to make him withdraw an appeal and, after he refused, brought another prisoner over to threaten him. The court found a potentially valid retaliation claim against Perner and dismissed claims against other defendants not adequately linked to the alleged violation.

Ruling and Case Management

The court ordered that the case proceed against the defendants and on the claims identified above, while dismissing all other defendants and claims. This was a screening determination that the identified allegations could proceed; it was not a final decision that Rhodes had proved those claims.

The clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve the amended complaint and the order without requiring advance payment of fees on the defendants listed in the order. The court required defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 60 days after service, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Rhodes’s opposition would generally be due within 30 days after service of such a motion. The court authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Rhodes to serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also warned that Rhodes had responsibility for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders. Failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.