Falcon v. Koenig

Background

David A. Falcon, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Craig Koenig and officers at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF). Falcon also filed a request to proceed without paying the filing fee; the court said that request would be addressed in a separate order.

Falcon alleged that he was placed on a security-threat-group list in March 2019 after prison officials found that he was affiliated with Southern Hispanic/Mexican inmates. He alleged that CTF staff authorized a May 2021 process to integrate different inmate groups in a recreational yard. According to Falcon, staff received information on May 24, 2021, that Fresno Bulldog inmates planned to attack Mexican or White inmates, but staff proceeded with the integration the next day. Falcon alleged that a riot followed and that officers used batons and pepper spray to stop it.

Falcon alleged that Koenig, S. Handly, McDonald, R. Glaze, L. Lopez, Macias, and Marquez failed to protect him from a known risk of attack. He also alleged that Koenig, Marquez, Handly, Glaze, and McDonald were responsible as supervisors for implementing the integration policy despite knowing that an attack was likely. Finally, he asserted negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against the defendants.

Screening and claims

Because Falcon sought relief from government officials, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is an initial review used to dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal right by someone acting under state authority.

The court found that, when read broadly, Falcon’s allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim for failing to protect him from violence by other prisoners. The court also found sufficient allegations for supervisor liability based on an allegedly constitutionally deficient policy to integrate security-threat-group inmates while knowing an attack was likely. The court said it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—involving Falcon’s negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims.

Order

The court ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The conclusion’s service list names Warden Craig Koenig, Captain S. Handly, Sgt. McDonald, Sgt. R. Glaze, Correctional Officer Macias, and Lt. Marquez. Although the complaint’s defendant list includes Correctional Officer L. Lopez, Lopez does not appear in the numbered service list in the provided text.

The defendants were directed to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, addressing the claims found cognizable. Falcon’s opposition would be due 28 days after the motion, and a reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The order also provided instructions about service, discovery, communications with the court, deadlines, and the consequences of failing to prosecute the case.

This order did not decide whether Falcon will ultimately prevail. It found his allegations sufficient to proceed beyond initial screening and set procedures for moving the case forward.