Kendrid v.Schuyler

Background

Forrest Kendrid, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion describes him as a civil detainee who was formerly held at Salinas Valley State Prison. He alleged that Warden Charles Schuyler, Facility Captain H. Lomeli, and Chief Executive Officer Scott Langevin knew about retaliation and other misconduct directed at him but failed to protect him.

Kendrid alleged that people under the defendants’ control beat him and subjected him to threats, inadequate medical care, intimidation, encouragement to harm himself, unsanitary conditions, inadequate hygiene, and denial of mental-health groups. He alleged that the defendants learned about these conditions through his complaints and grievances and failed to take disciplinary or protective action. He also alleged that his family requested protective measures, including housing changes, transfers, separation from staff members, and emotional support, but that the defendants did not provide them.

Kendrid initially sought only injunctive relief. He later moved to amend his complaint to seek damages. The court granted that motion and treated the first amended complaint as the operative complaint.

Screening and Claims

The court explained that it must screen a civil detainee’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court stated that Kendrid’s move to the California Medical Facility in January 2024 made his requests for injunctive relief moot. It therefore dismissed his claims for injunctive relief. The court also dismissed his claims against the defendants in their official capacities because those claims are treated as claims against the State and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The court concluded that, liberally construed, Kendrid’s allegations stated a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. Specifically, the court found that he sufficiently alleged that Schuyler, Lomeli, and Langevin failed to take steps to protect him from staff misconduct about which he had repeatedly informed them.

Ruling and Case Management

The court ordered that service proceed on Schuyler, Lomeli, and Langevin through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It directed the clerk to send the operative complaint, the order of service, a service-waiver form, and summons materials to the department. The order also described procedures for defendants who waive service and for service by the United States Marshals Service when a defendant does not waive service.

The defendants were ordered to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court set a schedule for dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment and motions based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. It also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules and granted defendants permission to depose Kendrid and other necessary witnesses confined in prison.

The order therefore dismissed the injunctive-relief claims and official-capacity claims, granted leave to amend, and allowed the remaining claim against the three named defendants to proceed to service. This was a screening and case-management order, not a final decision on whether Kendrid will ultimately prevail. Judge Trina L. Thompson signed the order.