Kendall v. Galindo

Background

Adam Michael Kendall, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Kendall sued officer Galindo, officer Uribe, nurse Donna Kelly, and unidentified officers responsible for discipline and prisoner safety. He sued each defendant individually.

Kendall alleged that on May 31, 2021, while housed in the mental-health section of the prison’s administrative-segregation unit for non-disciplinary reasons, officers refused to let him take paper, pen filler, and slippers to the yard. After he asked to speak with a supervisor and sat on the floor, he alleged that guards pulled his cuffed arms, dragged him, slammed him face-first into the floor, pressed their knees into his back, and pushed his face into the floor until he had difficulty breathing. He alleged that nurse Kelly refused his requests to see a doctor after the incident and inaccurately recorded what happened. Kendall claimed injuries to his back and face and worsening depression and anxiety.

The complaint alleged violations involving excessive force, retaliation, due process, and denial of medical care. Kendall also alleged assault and battery and requested declaratory, compensatory, and punitive relief.

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must provide more than labels or an unsupported assertion that a defendant caused harm. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state authority.

The court determined that Kendall’s allegations that correctional officers dragged him and slammed him face-first into the floor stated a potentially valid Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. But the complaint referred to the people who performed those acts only as “the guards.” Although it identified Galindo and Uribe as being on Kendall’s back, it did not make clear whether they were also the guards who dragged and slammed him. The court therefore dismissed the excessive-force claim with leave to amend so Kendall could correct the identification problem.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend. It explained that asking to speak with an officer’s supervisor and questioning an officer’s directions are not constitutionally protected activities supporting a prison-retaliation claim.

The court dismissed the due-process claim with leave to amend because the alleged conduct did not deprive Kendall of life, liberty, or property as required for that claim.

The court also dismissed the Eighth Amendment medical-care claim with leave to amend. It found that the complaint did not explain how Kendall’s back and face pain amounted to a serious medical need or why he needed to see a doctor rather than a nurse.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Kendall was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number, state that it was an “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The clerk was ordered to send Kendall two copies of the complaint form.