Lewis v. Brumfield

Background

Daronta T. Lewis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that guards at the Martinez Detention Facility assaulted him on April 29, 2020, and that another officer used excessive force against him on May 8, 2020, in retaliation for grievances he had filed against jail staff.

The court had previously dismissed earlier versions of Lewis’s complaint because they were difficult to follow and included claims outside the April 29 and May 8 incidents. The Ninth Circuit directed the court to allow Lewis to amend his complaint concerning those incidents. The court then instructed Lewis to file a fifth amended complaint of no more than 10 pages on the court’s form. His fifth amended complaint was 41 pages and was not on the required form.

Screening and Claims

Because Lewis sought relief from governmental officers, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred because a defendant is immune from monetary relief. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleading liberally.

The court concluded that, when read liberally, Lewis stated First and Eighth Amendment claims against Sergeant Cody Golden, Cory Thurman, Sergeant Michael Brumfield, and Deputy Sheriff Alfonzo. The claims against Golden, Thurman, and Brumfield concerned the alleged April 29 assault and retaliation. The claims against Alfonzo concerned the alleged May 8 use of excessive force and retaliation.

The court dismissed all other claims and defendants because the Ninth Circuit’s instructions limited the case to claims concerning the April 29 and May 8 incidents. The order directed the clerk to terminate all defendants except Golden, Thurman, Brumfield, and Alfonzo, and stated that all claims against the terminated defendants were dismissed.

Orders

The court ordered the clerk to issue summonses and the United States Marshal to serve the operative complaint and the order on the four remaining defendants without prepayment of fees. The defendants were permitted to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion by October 23, 2023. If they sought dismissal based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court directed them to present that issue through a motion for summary judgment.

Lewis’s opposition would be due 45 days after the defendants filed a dispositive motion, and the defendants’ reply would be due 15 days after the opposition. The court also allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave instructions about communications, extensions of time, address changes, and opposing a possible summary-judgment motion.

The court granted Lewis’s motion to be re-notified of rulings issued after the prior order. It also terminated all pending motions. The order warned that any future amended complaint would have to use the court’s form and be no longer than 10 pages, or it could be summarily dismissed.

Disposition

This was a prisoner-screening and service order, not a final decision on whether Lewis ultimately proved his claims. The court allowed the First and Eighth Amendment claims against Golden, Thurman, Brumfield, and Alfonzo to proceed, dismissed all other claims and defendants, granted Lewis’s re-notification motion, and directed the remaining defendants to respond.