Barksdale v. Smith

Background

Kenneth D. Barksdale, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff at San Quentin State Prison. He also filed a request to proceed without paying the filing fee; the court stated that request would be addressed separately.

Because Barksdale was a prisoner suing governmental employees, the court conducted the required initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, the court must identify claims that are legally insufficient or seek relief from defendants who are immune from that relief. The court also stated that filings by people without lawyers must be read generously.

Claims and Analysis

Barksdale alleged that on May 23, 2023, an unidentified correctional officer, called “C/O Doe,” used excessive force while removing him from his cell. He also alleged that Sgt. Ripenburger and other officers present failed to intervene. He claimed that these actions violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and sought damages.

The court held that the allegations were sufficient to state an excessive-force claim against C/O Doe and a failure-to-protect claim against Sgt. Ripenburger and the other officers who were present. The court gave Barksdale an opportunity to use discovery to identify the unknown defendants.

Barksdale also named Warden Oak Smith, Ad-seg Lt. Torress, and C/O Pacheco. The complaint did not mention Smith or Torress in the statement of the claim or attached grievance in connection with a specific excessive-force incident. The only allegation against Pacheco was that she had a verbal exchange with Barksdale while he was in a holding cell. The court ruled that verbal harassment and abuse, without more, does not state a claim under § 1983. It nevertheless gave Barksdale leave to amend to try to state sufficient facts against Smith, Torress, and Pacheco.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Within 28 days, Barksdale could file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case.

Alternatively, Barksdale could notify the court that he wanted to strike the claims against Smith, Torress, and Pacheco and proceed on the excessive-force and failure-to-protect claims against C/O Doe, Sgt. Ripenburger, and the other applicable defendants. He could then seek to identify the Doe defendants through discovery.

The court further ordered that failure to respond as directed and within the required time would result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims against Smith, Torress, and Pacheco for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The action would then proceed on the cognizable claims and against the remaining defendants.