Maggay v. Micke

Background

Roderick Maggay, who the opinion describes as a federal prisoner confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Herlong, filed this civil-rights case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officers at the Santa Rita County Jail. The court had dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to correct deficiencies. After Maggay filed a motion seeking clarification and named additional defendants, the court allowed him to file a second amended complaint. The court granted three extensions of time to file that complaint, but Maggay did not respond by the December 20, 2022 deadline.

Because the deadline passed, the court ordered the case to proceed on the claims that had already been found legally sufficient in the amended complaint. In screening a prisoner’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court identifies claims that may proceed and dismisses claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found sufficient allegations for three claims:

- Excessive force: an excessive-force claim against Officer Micke under the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion states that the allegations were sufficient to claim that force against a post-arraignment pretrial detainee amounted to punishment. - Failure to protect: a failure-to-protect claim against Deputy Perez. - Retaliation: a retaliation claim against Officer Micke. Liberally construed, Maggay alleged that Micke took adverse action, including placing him in an isolation cell, because Maggay requested medical attention and exercised what he described as a First Amendment free-speech right.

The court also allowed Maggay to use discovery to identify defendants who were allegedly present and failed to intervene. It instructed him to provide their names and move to add them. If he did not identify them, those unidentified defendants would be dismissed without prejudice to filing a new action against them. Within the same period set for the defendants’ dispositive motion, Maggay was also directed to file a motion to amend concerning newly identified defendants for his failure-to-protect claim and deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim, with specific allegations against each defendant.

Order and Effect

The court ordered the action to proceed on the three cognizable claims. It directed the clerk to terminate “Officer Perry” and replace that defendant with “Deputy Perez,” and directed that Deputy Perez receive notice and the relevant case papers for service. The court ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion concerning the cognizable claims no later than 91 days after the order was filed. Maggay’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after that.

The order permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warned Maggay that failing to oppose a summary-judgment motion could lead to judgment against him without a trial. It also stated that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b). Judge Beth Labson Freeman did not decide the ultimate merits of the three claims in this order; she allowed them to proceed past preliminary screening and set the next procedural steps.