Smith v. Madsen

Background

Anthony Smith, identified as a California prisoner, filed a self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at the California Training Facility in 2019. The complaint named correctional officers H. Madsen, S. Maiorana, and V. Garcia. The court stated that Smith’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted in a separate order.

Screening standard

The court conducted the preliminary screening required for prisoner complaints against governmental officers under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed or dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented complaints must be read liberally. A claim under Section 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

Claims found cognizable

The court held that, when read liberally, Smith’s allegations that Madsen and Maiorana used force against him stated a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment. The court also found cognizable Smith’s allegation that Garcia failed to intervene.

The court further held that Smith’s allegations that the defendants searched him, used excessive force, failed to report the force, and filed false disciplinary reports because he had previously filed administrative grievances stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim.

“Cognizable” here means that the allegations were sufficient to allow the claims to proceed past the initial screening stage. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.

Ruling and case management

Judge Corley ordered that the defendants be served at the California Training Facility through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process, with United States Marshals Service procedures to be used for defendants who did not waive service. The defendants were ordered to file jurisdiction-consent forms and an answer.

The order also directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order, unless they informed the court that the case could not be resolved that way. Smith’s opposition would be due 28 days after such a motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and instructed Smith to serve copies of his court communications on the defendants or their counsel.

The order reminded Smith that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and following court deadlines. It stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.