Foster v. Crosby

Background

Michael Barkarri Foster filed a first amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violations of federal rights. He alleged that prison guards at Pelican Bay State Prison battered and stabbed him in February 2021, violating the Eighth Amendment.

Foster’s original complaint had been dismissed with permission to amend because it named many defendants but provided specific factual allegations against only one. In the amended complaint, he identified allegations against several correctional officers.

Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed

Because Foster sought relief from government officers while incarcerated, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is an initial review to determine whether a prisoner’s complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.

The court concluded that, when read liberally, the amended complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Sergeant Puente, L. Sullenger, D. Eades, C. Crosby, M. Shaffer, and B. Tubbs. The order identifies these six people as correctional officers at Pelican Bay State Prison. It directed the defendants to respond to the claims and instructed the Clerk to modify the docket so that these were the only defendants remaining. All other persons were terminated as defendants.

Service and Next Steps Ordered

The court directed service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The Department was ordered to report which defendants would waive service, and the Clerk was directed to arrange service through the United States Marshals Service for any defendants who did not waive service or could not be reached through the program.

The defendants were ordered to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion by March 6, 2023. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve the claims. The order specifically allowed a motion asserting that Foster failed to complete available prison grievance procedures, as required by federal law, and instructed that any summary-judgment motion comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The order set deadlines for Foster’s opposition and the defendants’ reply, allowed discovery under the federal rules, and provided instructions concerning court communications, extensions of time, address changes, and prosecution of the case. If the defendants filed a summary-judgment motion, they were required to provide Foster with notice explaining how to oppose it.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick allowed the Eighth Amendment claims against the six identified correctional officers to proceed past initial screening, ordered service, and directed the defendants to file a dispositive motion or notice by the stated deadline. The opinion did not decide the ultimate merits of Foster’s excessive-force allegations.