Allen v. Kennison

Background

Cedric Ray Allen, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that correctional officers used excessive force against him on July 8, 2022, and that prison officials violated his due-process rights in preparing and handling disciplinary documents after the incident. He also alleged racial discrimination.

Screening and Claims

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

The court found that Allen’s allegations appeared to state an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim under § 1983 against E. Love. Allen alleged that Love and two unidentified officers grabbed him, threw him against a wall, handcuffed him despite his claimed dislocated shoulder, pushed and assaulted him, and continued handling him roughly while he was restrained. The court allowed Allen to pursue claims against John Does 1 and 2 while he sought to learn their names through discovery, but required him to provide their names by the deadline for an amended complaint. If he did not do so, those defendants would be dismissed without prejudice to later actions after their identities became known.

The court also found cognizable Allen’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims against J. Tijerina, L. Blackman, and D. Kennison. Those allegations concerned a purportedly false incident report, the handling of witness questions and hearing evidence, and the alleged failure to file required reports. The court found that Allen adequately alleged that placement in administrative segregation resulted from the alleged denials.

The court construed Allen’s racial-discrimination allegation as a Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim rather than a First Amendment claim. It held that Allen had not alleged facts showing that he was treated differently from other inmates because of race or another protected category, or facts showing discriminatory intent. The court therefore dismissed that claim with leave to amend.

Orders

The court ordered service of the operative complaint and related documents on D. Kennison, E. Love, and L. Blackman under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service procedure. It instructed Allen that any amended complaint had to be filed within 28 days, include the case caption and number, identify John Does 1 and 2, and include all claims he wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint would result in dismissal of the John Doe defendants without prejudice and dismissal of the racial-discrimination claims, while the initial complaint would remain operative and the case would proceed under the order.

The court referred the case to the Northern District of California’s Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman. It authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and administratively closed the case during the mediation process, stating that it would issue a scheduling order if the case was not settled.