Penn v. Allen

Background

Marlin A. Penn, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he had formerly been housed. The court stated that Penn had been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee in a separate order.

Because Penn was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At that stage, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also said it would read an unrepresented party’s allegations liberally, while requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than speculative.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

Penn alleged that Thomas retaliated against him for filing grievances by preventing him from working in the prison library, arranging for other correctional officers to assault him, and subjecting him to discipline without adequate procedural protections and based on false battery charges. Penn alleged that Tomlinson participated in the retaliation; that Sanchez-Zamora, Camacho, Reveles, Lopez, and Barbosa participated in the assault; and that Sterns, Ruiz, Torres, DeLeon, Caballero, Lemon, and Allen participated in the discipline and later segregation.

The court found that, when liberally construed, these allegations stated claims capable of being heard and decided for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and denial of due process. Penn also alleged that Registered Nurse Enriquez failed to provide adequate medical care and failed to document injuries after the assault. The court found that those allegations stated an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim capable of proceeding.

Claims Dismissed

Penn alleged that DeLeon stole his television and glasses. The court held that an unauthorized negligent or intentional deprivation of property does not support a federal due-process claim under Section 1983 when the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. The court stated that California provides such a remedy and dismissed Penn’s claim against DeLeon concerning the stolen property.

Penn also alleged that Godinez, Lemon, Allen, and Mosely failed to properly process or decide his prison grievances. The court held that there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance or administrative-appeal system and dismissed those claims.

Order and Case Status

The order dismissed the property claim against DeLeon and the grievance-processing claims against Godinez, Lemon, Allen, and Mosely. It ordered service to proceed for the remaining claims and defendants listed in the order, including claims involving retaliation, excessive force, due process, and medical care. The order also directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion by May 1, 2023, set June 1, 2023, for Penn’s opposition, and June 15, 2023, for a reply. Discovery was permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The service list in the order names Thomas, Tomlinson, Sanchez-Zamora, Reveles, Lopez, Sterns, Ruiz, Torres, DeLeon, Caballero, Lemon, Allen, and Enriquez; Barbosa is discussed as an alleged participant in the assault but does not appear in that later service list. The order did not decide whether Penn would ultimately prevail on the claims allowed to continue.