Kendrid v. Ekanem

Background

Forrest Kendrid filed this self-represented civil-rights action while in state custody at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that Nurse Inneh, Nurse Ekanem, Correctional Officer Garcia, Supervising Nurse Salazar, and Psychologist Callis used harassing or abusive language, contributed to episodes of self-harm, failed to provide adequate medical, mental-health, and hygiene care, and retaliated against him for making complaints and grievances. He sought a declaration and compensatory and punitive damages.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Kendrid was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that, when read liberally, the complaint stated a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment based on allegedly inadequate responses to his urgent medical, mental-health, and hygiene needs and abusive language during mental-health crises. The court also found that he stated a First Amendment retaliation claim based on allegations that the defendants took adverse actions because he filed complaints, including allegedly refusing showers, diaper changes, and medication.

The order’s opening states that the complaint presents cognizable Eighth Amendment claims, while the later analysis and conclusion identify cognizable Fourteenth and First Amendment claims. The provided text does not explain this difference.

Temporary Restraining Order

Kendrid requested a temporary restraining order requiring a safe, non-retaliatory setting and measures such as separating him from the defendants, changing his housing, removing staff from contact with him, and providing emotional-support services. A temporary restraining order is an emergency court order intended to prevent likely and immediate irreparable harm. The court denied the motion.

The court found that Kendrid had not shown likely immediate irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships favored him, or that the requested order would serve the public interest. It also found that his requested relief was vague, that he had not clearly identified what medical treatment was being withheld or stopped, and that the submitted materials showed he was receiving at least some treatment and that staff were attempting to prevent self-harm. The court further stated that it could not order relief against nonparties and that the named defendants lacked authority to order some requested measures, such as housing changes or transfers.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Kendrid’s request for appointed counsel. It found that his likelihood of success was low at that stage and that the legal issues were not unusually complex. The denial was expressly stated to be without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances warranted.

Motion to Strike

Defendants asked the court to strike two additional declarations supporting the temporary-restraining-order motion. Because the court considered those declarations while deciding the motion, it denied defendants’ motion to strike as moot. The conclusion separately states that the motion to strike was denied.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court denied the temporary-restraining-order motion, denied the request for appointed counsel, and denied the motion to strike. It ordered service of the complaint on Inneh, Ekanem, Garcia, Salazar, and Callis through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program or, if necessary, through the United States Marshals Service. The order also established deadlines for answers and dispositive motions, including summary judgment, and allowed discovery under the federal rules.