Dunbar v. Darrett

Background

Eddie Dunbar, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeded without a lawyer. Dunbar alleged that sixteen prison officials either used excessive force against him or failed to intervene during an incident on January 6, 2023.

According to the complaint, G. Darrett directed Dunbar to move cells. A confrontation followed, and Darrett allegedly challenged Dunbar to fight. After Darrett swung at him, Dunbar alleged that he punched Darrett in self-defense. Dunbar then alleged that Darrett and other officers attacked him while he was restrained or lying prone. He described being punched, kicked, stomped, choked, and slammed into the floor. He also alleged that officers prevented medical staff from treating him, dropped a gurney that shattered his wrist, and caused other injuries.

Screening and Claims

The court conducted the required initial screening of a prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court explained that an excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment depends on whether force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Construing Dunbar’s allegations liberally, the court found a legally sufficient claim against G. Darrett, A. Kauffman, C. Contreras, J. Garcia, J. Taylor, A. Shaad, J. Franz, E. Gonzalez, S. Webber, D. Sandoval, J. Johnson, J. Frawley, K. Gisler, A. Harris, and R. Pedroza for allegedly making harmful physical contact with him. The court also found a legally sufficient failure-to-intervene claim against V. Becker, whom Dunbar identified as watching from the control booth.

Order

The court ordered service on the defendants listed in the conclusion of the order through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service pilot program. It referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman for settlement proceedings through the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The mediation proceedings were to occur within 120 days of the order, or as soon afterward as the magistrate judge’s calendar allowed.

After the complaint was served on the named defendants against whom Dunbar alleged legally sufficient claims, the court stayed all further proceedings and directed the Clerk to administratively close the case until further order. The court stated that, if the case was not settled, it would issue a scheduling order. It also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and set requirements for Dunbar’s communications with the court and responsibility to keep the court and parties informed of any address change.

The court’s conclusion lists G. Darrett, J. Frawley, C. Contreras, J. Garcia, J. Taylor, A. Shaad, J. Frannz, E. Gonzalez, S. Webber, D. Sandoval, J. Johnson, R. Pedroza, A. Kauffman, V. Becker, K. Gisler, and E. Kauffman for service. This list differs from the earlier discussion: it includes E. Kauffman and does not include A. Harris, while the discussion identifies A. Harris as one of the officials alleged to have used force.