Keeton v. Salinas Valley State Prison

Background

Tommy Keeton filed a first amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the required screening process for a prisoner’s lawsuit against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.

Keeton alleged that, in October 2021 at Salinas Valley State Prison, correctional officers T. Deslaurier Rixman, Juan Mora, and Jose Gil-Rojas used excessive force against him. He alleged that supervisor Elizabeth Gonzalez saw the force and failed to intervene. He also alleged that Rixman unlawfully searched his cell, damaged property during the search, and filed a false Rules Violation Report in retaliation for an administrative appeal Keeton had filed against Rixman.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found cognizable, meaning legally sufficient at the screening stage, the following claims:

- Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against Rixman, Mora, and Gil-Rojas; - an Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim against Gonzalez; and - First Amendment retaliation and related due-process claims against Rixman.

The court explained that the due-process claim concerning the allegedly false report could succeed only if Keeton could show that he was not given procedural due process at the later disciplinary hearing.

Claims Dismissed

The court dismissed Keeton’s Fourth Amendment claim concerning the cell search. It held that a prisoner does not have a legitimate subjective expectation of privacy in a prison cell, so the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches does not apply within the prison cell.

The court also dismissed the claims concerning destruction of property. It stated that a random and unauthorized negligent or intentional deprivation of property does not ordinarily state a federal due-process claim when an adequate state remedy is available, and it found that California provides such a remedy. The order did not state that these claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.

Orders and Next Steps

The court ordered service of the amended complaint and attachments on Rixman, Mora, Gil-Rojas, and Gonzalez and directed those defendants to respond to the cognizable claims. It required the defendants, by February 19, 2024, to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion addressing those claims, or to notify the court if the case could not be resolved by summary judgment. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve some or all of the case.

The court stated that any exhaustion challenge under the Prison Litigation Reform Act had to be raised through a motion for summary judgment. It also instructed the parties about briefing deadlines, service, and the evidence needed to oppose summary judgment. The stay of discovery was dissolved, so discovery could recommence under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order further required defendants to provide Keeton with the Ninth Circuit notice explaining how to oppose a summary-judgment motion.