Keeton v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

The action was removed from state court. Tommy Keeton, who is representing himself, alleged that correctional officers violated his federal rights and committed state-law torts. The court treated the federal claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority.

Screening and Claims Allowed to Proceed

Because Keeton is a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court conducted an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found cognizable claims—claims that were sufficient to proceed—based on allegations that T. Deslaurier Rixman, Juan Mora, and Jose Gil-Rojas used excessive force against Keeton; that Rixman filed a false Rules matter violating Keeton’s First Amendment rights; that Rixman damaged property during a cell search; and that Rixman, Mora, and Gil-Rojas committed battery under state law.

The court dismissed Keeton’s claims against Elizabeth Gonzalez and T. Lemon because the complaint did not show that either supervisor knew about the alleged attack or could have prevented it. The court also ordered the Clerk to terminate Salinas Valley State Prison and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as defendants and stated that all claims against those entities were dismissed.

Motions

The court granted Keeton’s motions to extend the time to object to removal and treated his objections as timely. It denied his motion for assistance involving “large print writing,” his motion to remand the case to state court, his motion to require Rixman to respond immediately and to issue a subpoena for a personal appearance, and his motion to have the case assigned to Magistrate Judge DeMarchi.

The court denied Keeton’s motions for appointed counsel because he had not shown exceptional circumstances. The court also denied his motion for an extension of time to find an attorney, while stating that it could reconsider appointed counsel later if circumstances changed. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions.

Next Steps Ordered

The court ordered service of the complaint and attachments on the defendants associated with the cognizable claims. Defendants were permitted to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion by July 10, 2023. The order established deadlines for Keeton’s opposition and defendants’ reply, authorized discovery under the federal rules, and required defendants to provide a specific notice if they later filed a summary-judgment motion.