Dunbar v. Dahlberg

Background

Eddie Dunbar, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, on July 14, 2022, correctional officers A. Dahlberg, Ortiz, Cavazos, and Avalla used excessive force against him after he complied with an order to lie face down. His allegations included that the officers smashed his face into the ground, choked him until he became unconscious, applied submission-type locks to his arms and legs, and—after he was handcuffed—Dahlberg punched and kicked his left ribs and tried to injure his arms and legs.

Screening and Claims

The court explained that it must conduct an initial review of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must identify legally supportable claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state authority.

For an excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment, the central question is whether prison officials used force in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead used force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The court stated that Dunbar’s allegations, read generously, appeared to state an arguably valid § 1983 claim for excessive force against the named correctional officers.

Order

The court ordered service of the complaint on A. Dahlberg, Ortiz, Cavasos, and Avalla. Service was to proceed through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for civil-rights cases brought by prisoners in its custody, with the United States Marshals Service to serve defendants who did not waive service or could not be reached.

The court ordered defendants to serve and file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 90 days after service, or to notify the court if the case could not be resolved that way. It set deadlines for Dunbar’s opposition and defendants’ reply, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order also required Dunbar to serve his court communications on the defendants or their counsel and warned that failing to prosecute the case or keep the court informed of an address change could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).

This was a screening and service order, not a final decision on the merits. The court did not determine whether the alleged force occurred, whether it violated the Eighth Amendment, or whether Dunbar was entitled to damages.