Awad v. Dr. Birbenk

Background

Abdulhadi Naim Awad filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he had been housed at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility. He was proceeding without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint with permission to amend.

Awad’s amended complaint and addendum concerned his January 26, 2020 arrest and medical treatment for injuries he said occurred before or during the arrest. He alleged constitutional violations involving Officer Finnegan and other California Highway Patrol officers, including claims related to his arrest and a police report. He also alleged that Dr. Birbenk inadequately treated his hand at Queen of the Valley Medical Center, causing pain and lasting impairment. Awad said he had not been convicted and had been ordered or sentenced to rehabilitation under a mental-health conservatorship because he was considered incompetent to stand trial.

Reasons for dismissal

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early review of certain complaints brought by people who are incarcerated. The court concluded that the amended complaint still did not provide enough specific facts to show what each defendant did, when and where the conduct occurred, or how the conduct violated Awad’s constitutional rights.

As to the arrest-related claims, the court found that Awad’s allegations were largely conclusory. For example, the complaint did not explain how he concluded that police caused his car to explode or sedated him. It was also unclear whether Finnegan was the arresting officer or was present during the incident. The court instructed Awad to identify each defendant and describe each person’s specific conduct.

As to Dr. Birbenk, the court said Awad’s allegations, even when read generously, appeared at most to state negligence rather than deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The court also said it was unclear whether Birbenk was a state actor, meaning someone acting for the government. The court noted that the medical center did not appear to be state-run and required Awad to explain in a second amended complaint whether Birbenk acted under state authority.

The court also addressed exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law generally requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before filing a civil-rights lawsuit about prison conditions, including when the prisoner seeks money damages. Awad said he filed a grievance in July 2020 but received no response or receipt. Because he did not provide the grievance or identify which claims it concerned, the court could not determine whether he had exhausted each claim before filing suit. The court therefore required him to allege exhaustion or explain whether the grievance process was unavailable.

The court discussed the rule commonly called the Heck bar, which can prevent a person from seeking damages for conduct that would undermine an existing conviction or sentence unless that conviction or sentence has been invalidated. The court said Heck did not currently apply because Awad had not been convicted. It explained that the arrest-related claims might instead be stayed until the criminal case ended; if Awad were later convicted, claims that would undermine that conviction could then be dismissed under Heck.

Finally, the court found that Awad had improperly joined unrelated claims. The arrest-related claims against Finnegan or other highway patrol officers and the medical-treatment claims against Birbenk did not appear to arise from the same events or share common legal or factual questions. The court instructed Awad to bring only properly joined claims in this action and to file separate lawsuits for claims that did not meet the joinder rules.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend and gave Awad one further opportunity to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must separately state each claim, identify each defendant’s specific actions or failures to act, identify the resulting injury, address exhaustion for each claim and defendant, include only properly joined claims, and avoid conclusory allegations and claims based only on supervisory responsibility. Awad also had to update the status of his criminal case, explain whether he still wished to pursue the arrest-related claims, explain whether Birbenk was a state actor, use the court’s civil-rights form, and file the second amended complaint within 28 days. The order stated that failure to file it by the deadline or correct the deficiencies would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.