Kendall v. Galindo
- Haywood Gilliam
- 5:23-cv-02709
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Kendall v. Galindo, Judge Gilliam allowed three claims against two officers to proceed, dismissed the nurse’s claim for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed John Doe defendants without prejudice.
Adam Michael Kendall may continue litigating the excessive-force, bodily-privacy, assault, and battery claims against officers Galindo and Uribe. Nurse Donna Kelly was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the John Doe defendants were dismissed without prejudice, allowing Kendall to seek to identify them and file a second amended complaint.
What happened
Kendall v. Galindo concerns Adam Michael Kendall’s lawsuit about a May 31, 2021 incident at Salinas Valley State Prison. Kendall, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued prison officers, a nurse, and unidentified defendants under a federal civil-rights law and state law.
The court found that Kendall adequately alleged that officers Galindo and Uribe used excessive force, conducted an unjustified strip search, and committed assault and battery. The court also found that his allegations about delayed medical care did not support a state negligence claim against nurse Donna Kelly in federal court, and that his allegations against the unidentified defendants were insufficient.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered service on Galindo and Uribe, dismissed the negligence claim and Kelly for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed the John Doe defendants without prejudice so Kendall could seek to identify and add them in a later amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Kendall v. Galindo · No. 5:23-cv-02709
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 27, 2023
Background
Adam Michael Kendall, an incarcerated person who represented himself, filed an amended civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that events at Salinas Valley State Prison on May 31, 2021 violated federal constitutional rights and state law. The court reviewed the amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
At this screening stage, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, Kendall had to allege both a violation of a federal right and action by someone acting under state authority.
Claims Allowed to Proceed
The court found these claims adequately pleaded against officers Galindo and Uribe:
- Excessive force: Kendall alleged that, while he was handcuffed and sitting calmly on the floor, Galindo and Uribe yanked his arms, dragged him, slammed his face into the ground, pressed their knees into his spine, pushed his face into the ground, and stepped on his head. The court found these allegations stated an Eighth Amendment claim. - Invasion of bodily privacy: Kendall alleged that Galindo and Uribe subjected him to a strip search without a legitimate correctional goal. He also alleged that inmates in a specified group were subjected to discretionary strip searches despite having no ability to access contraband. The court found these allegations stated Fourth Amendment claims. - Assault and battery: The court found that the allegations stated related state-law assault and battery claims against Galindo and Uribe.
The court ordered that Galindo and Uribe be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic service program, with United States Marshal service to follow for any defendant who did not waive service.
Claims and Defendants Dismissed
The court dismissed Kendall’s state-law negligence claim against nurse Donna Kelly for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed Kelly from the action. The court stated that no federal claim was asserted against Kelly and that the negligence claim was not sufficiently related to the claims against Galindo and Uribe to allow supplemental jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the John Doe defendants without prejudice to Kendall filing a second amended complaint after determining their identities. The court also stated that Kendall’s allegation that these defendants failed to discipline Galindo and Uribe for earlier misconduct did not adequately allege deliberate indifference to his safety. The allegation was too conclusory to show that the John Doe defendants knew Kendall faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk.
Further Case Management
The court directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. Kendall’s opposition would be due 28 days after any such motion, and a reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that discovery could proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and reminded Kendall of his responsibilities concerning service of filings, deadlines, address changes, and prosecuting the case.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.