Maggay v. Micke

Background

Roderick Maggay, a federal prisoner, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the Santa Rita County Jail. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend. Maggay then filed an amended complaint and a response to the court’s order.

Maggay alleged that, on or about November 17, 2018, while he was a pretrial detainee at the jail, he used an emergency button because he was suffering from a bleeding gunshot wound incurred before his arrest. He alleged that Officer Micke responded, became hostile, grabbed him by the shirt and neck, lifted and dragged him, choked him, and handcuffed him. Maggay alleged that Officer Perry assisted minimally by holding him during the handcuffing and did not stop Micke’s use of force. He also alleged that other deputies witnessed the incident but did not intervene.

Maggay separately alleged that jail medical staff ignored his reports of breathing difficulty, wound seepage, and severe pain over several days. He claimed that staff failed to provide adequate dressings, pain medication, or other medical care, and that medical personnel misdiagnosed injuries from the alleged assault before an X-ray showed a broken rib. He also alleged that Micke’s conduct and placing him in an isolation cell were retaliation for requesting medical attention.

Screening standard

Because Maggay sought relief from government officers, the court conducted preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that it must identify claims that are legally cognizable and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.

Claims allowed to proceed

The court found that Maggay’s allegations were sufficient to state an excessive-force claim against Officer Micke under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Maggay was a pretrial detainee, the court analyzed the claim under the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment.

The court also found sufficient allegations for a failure-to-protect claim against Officer Perry. It allowed Maggay’s retaliation claim against Officer Micke to proceed after liberally construing Maggay’s allegations that he was subjected to adverse action because he requested medical attention, that the action chilled his speech, and that it lacked a legitimate correctional purpose.

Medical claims and unidentified defendants

The court stated that Maggay’s medical-care claims were also governed by the Fourteenth Amendment because he was a pretrial detainee, rather than by the Eighth Amendment. Because Maggay had not identified the individual medical staff members, the court permitted him to seek their names and request leave to amend. Any proposed amendment had to state what care he requested, when he requested it, and how each newly identified defendant responded or failed to respond.

The court likewise gave Maggay an opportunity to identify the unnamed deputies who allegedly failed to intervene. It directed him to obtain their names through discovery, if necessary, and move to add them. If he failed to provide their names by the deadline set for a dispositive motion, those unidentified defendants would be dismissed without prejudice to a new action against them.

Order

The action was ordered to proceed on three cognizable claims: excessive force against Officer Micke, failure to protect against Officer Perry, and retaliation against Officer Micke. The clerk was directed to terminate “Medical Department” and “Alameda County Jail” because the amended complaint contained no allegations against them. The clerk was also directed to send the lawsuit and service-waiver materials to Micke and Perry.

The court ordered the defendants, within 91 days after the order was filed, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims, or to notify the court if the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. The order authorized discovery and set deadlines for Maggay’s opposition and the defendants’ reply. The court cautioned Maggay that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could result in judgment against him without a trial.