Stallworth v. Thomas
- 5:22-cv-07667
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Stallworth v. Thomas, the court screened Kenny Stallworth’s prisoner civil-rights complaint, found claims against four officials could proceed, and ordered service.
Kenny Stallworth’s claims against Captain M. Thomas, Lieutenant R. Poodry, Officer T. Flores, and Officer C. Avalos were allowed to proceed past initial screening, and the four defendants were ordered to be served.
What happened
In Stallworth v. Thomas, Kenny Stallworth, a prisoner representing himself, alleged that officials moved people infected with COVID-19 into or near his housing unit without safety measures. He also alleged that two officials denied him access to the prison canteen, preventing him from buying hygiene items and maintaining a balanced diet.
The court found that Stallworth had stated Eighth Amendment claims against Captain M. Thomas and Lieutenant R. Poodry, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Officers T. Flores and C. Avalos. It ordered that all four defendants be served.
The court did not decide whether Stallworth ultimately proved his claims. It set deadlines for possible dispositive motions, Stallworth’s response, and any reply, and reminded him of his responsibility to prosecute the case. The opinion does not identify the magistrate judge by name.
The detailed version
- Stallworth v. Thomas · No. 5:22-cv-07667
- June 28, 2023
Background
Kenny Stallworth, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against persons who, while acting under state authority, violate federal rights. The court reviewed his first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early screening of a prisoner’s complaint against governmental entities or officials.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
Stallworth alleged that Captain M. Thomas and Lieutenant R. Poodry moved people infected with COVID-19 into his building unit without safety measures to control the virus’s spread. He alleged that infected people were allowed to interact with him and were housed near him. Construing his self-represented complaint liberally, the court concluded that he stated claims for relief under the Eighth Amendment against Thomas and Poodry.
Stallworth also alleged that Officer T. Flores and Officer C. Avalos denied him canteen privileges. He said this prevented him from buying necessary personal and physical hygiene items and items needed to maintain a balanced diet. The court concluded that, liberally construed, these allegations stated claims for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment against Flores and Avalos.
Order
The court ordered service of the complaint and related documents on Thomas, Poodry, Flores, and Avalos through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. If a defendant does not waive service, the clerk was directed to prepare forms for service by the United States Marshals Service.
The court also ordered that, no later than 60 days after service, the defendants file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, or inform the court if they believed the case could not be resolved by such a motion. Stallworth’s opposition would be due 30 days after service of the motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This order was a screening and service order. It did not decide the ultimate merits of Stallworth’s claims. The court warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The judge’s name is not legible or stated in the provided opinion text; the signature identifies the signer only as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.