Slamen v. Castenada

Background

Mark Slamen, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Salinas Valley State Prison correctional officers. He alleged that, during an October 2020 incident, H. Castenada and Valencia dropped him face-first onto the ground while he was using a wheelchair. Slamen alleged that Castenada then knelt on his back, breaking two ribs, and that Castenada and Valencia delayed obtaining medical care. He also alleged that the officers used excessive force and delayed medical care in retaliation for his filing grievances.

Slamen separately alleged that, during November 2020 incidents, Valencia disclosed information to other inmates identifying Slamen as a “rat” as part of a plan to have him assaulted in retaliation for filing grievances. Slamen alleged that an inmate assaulted him as a result.

Screening Standard

Because Slamen sought relief from governmental officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that it would read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings

The court held that, when read liberally, the complaint stated cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims and Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force and delayed medical care against Castenada and Valencia concerning the October 2020 incident.

The court dismissed Slamen’s claims concerning the November 2020 incidents without prejudice because those incidents were separate from the October incident. The court relied on the federal rule generally requiring claims in one action to arise from the same transaction or occurrence and to involve a common legal or factual question. The court stated that Slamen could raise the November claims in a separate civil-rights action.

The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on H. Castenada and Valencia. It directed the defendants to file, by January 23, 2023, a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion concerning the claims found cognizable, or to notify the court if the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. If the defendants sought dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the court directed them to present that issue through a summary-judgment motion. The order also set deadlines for Slamen’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, authorized discovery under the federal rules, and provided instructions concerning service, records, address changes, extensions, and notice about opposing a future summary-judgment motion.

This was a preliminary screening and case-management order. It identified claims that could proceed but did not decide the truth of the allegations or whether Slamen would win. Judge William H. Orrick signed the order.