McCurty v. Madsen

Background

Michael McCurty, a state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Correctional Officer H. Madsen, Correctional Officer Arlene Stephens, Warden Craig Koenig, and Does 1–3. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

McCurty alleged that Madsen and Stephens conducted retaliatory cell searches on July 11 and August 10, 2019. He alleged that during the August 10 search, Madsen ordered him outside his cell, pulled down his pants, exposed him to inmates and Stephens, grabbed his buttocks, and touched and squeezed his penis and scrotum through his underwear. He also alleged that Stephens laughed and that Koenig knew about staff misconduct and failed to take disciplinary action or otherwise control staff behavior.

Screening standard

Because McCurty is a prisoner seeking relief from government officers, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 explained that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court held that McCurty’s Eighth Amendment claim for sexual harassment or an unconstitutional body search against Madsen, Stephens, and Koenig was cognizable, meaning sufficiently pleaded to proceed at this stage. The court explained that prison staff may violate the Eighth Amendment by turning a routine pat-down into a humiliating and abusive sexual assault. It also concluded that McCurty’s allegations that this conduct was pervasive and that Koenig knew about the violations and failed to act were sufficient to allow the claim against Koenig to proceed.

Claims dismissed or limited

The court dismissed the claims against Does 1–3 without prejudice because McCurty did not make specific allegations about any unknown defendant. The court allowed him to file an amended complaint with additional allegations identifying or describing those defendants.

The court found that McCurty’s allegation that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the possibility that he might harm his cellmate was not a cognizable claim as pleaded. The court stated that he could amend if he instead intended to allege that defendants’ conduct was meant to cause his cellmate or other prisoners to harm him.

The court also stated that McCurty could not seek injunctive relief on behalf of other prisoners, and it struck allegations seeking that relief for others. Although the complaint referred to state and federal constitutional rights, the court did not construe it as asserting state-law claims because McCurty listed only Eighth Amendment causes of action. The complaint referred to retaliation, but did not list a retaliation cause of action; the court allowed McCurty to add a First Amendment retaliation claim through amendment if he wished.

Order and next steps

The court ordered service of the complaint on Madsen, Stephens, and Koenig through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service process for prisoner civil-rights cases. It ordered that the case proceed on the cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.

McCurty was given 28 days from the date of the order to file a first amended complaint containing any additional claims or allegations. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint and would need to include all claims he wished to pursue, including the already-cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. If he did not file an amended complaint within that period, the case would not proceed against the Doe defendants and would proceed against Madsen, Stephens, and Koenig only on the Eighth Amendment claim. The order also set procedures for defendants’ answers, discovery, and later dispositive motions.