Kendrid v. Bevins
- 3:23-cv-05018
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Kendrid v. Bevins, the court screened Forrest Kendrid’s claims, dismissed injunctive-relief claims, and ordered service of the remaining claims.
Forrest Kendrid’s requests for injunctive relief were dismissed, while his remaining claims against Nikiah Bevins, Officer Zuniga, and Nurse Socivio were ordered served and allowed to proceed at this stage.
What happened
In Kendrid v. Bevins, Forrest Kendrid, a self-represented civil detainee, alleged that Nurse Nikiah Bevins used excessive force against him and that Officer Zuniga and Nurse Socivio failed to intervene. He also alleged that Officer Zuniga threatened him, fabricated an assault report, and retaliated against him.
The court concluded that Kendrid stated a legally recognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. Because Kendrid had been moved to another facility, the court determined that his requests for orders controlling the defendants were no longer live and dismissed those injunctive-relief claims.
The court dismissed the injunctive-relief claims and ordered service of the remaining claims on Bevins, Zuniga, and Socivio. The court also set procedures for responses, discovery, and later dispositive motions.
The detailed version
- Kendrid v. Bevins · No. 3:23-cv-05018
- Mar. 22, 2024
Background
Forrest Kendrid, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this 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, on July 29, 2023, Nurse Nikiah Bevins removed his diaper, struck him in the pelvis, and left him exposed. He alleged that Officer Zuniga and Nurse Socivio did not intervene. He also alleged that Zuniga laughed when Kendrid sought help, threatened to falsify an assault report, prepared a report claiming that spit landed on his uniform, and continued threatening him to withdraw grievances.
Kendrid alleged violations of the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments and sought an order stopping retaliation and separating him from the defendants, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
Screening standard
The court explained that it must screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or employee. At screening, the court must identify legally recognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also stated that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally, but a complaint must contain enough factual material to make the requested relief plausible.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits subjecting civil detainees to conditions that amount to punishment. The court concluded that, read liberally, Kendrid’s allegations stated a legally recognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. The excerpt provided does not fully display the sentence identifying the specific remaining cognizable claims, but the order directed service on Bevins, Zuniga, and Socivio.
The court determined that Kendrid’s January 2024 transfer to the California Medical Facility made his requests for injunctive relief moot, meaning that those requests no longer presented a live dispute. The court dismissed the claims for injunctive relief.
Disposition and case procedures
The order states:
- Kendrid’s claims for injunctive relief were DISMISSED.
- Service was ordered to proceed on Nikiah Bevins, Officer Zuniga, and Nurse Socivio through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program.
- The defendants were required to answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The order established deadlines for summary-judgment or other dispositive motions, opposition and reply briefs, and discovery.
- The order advised Kendrid about responding to summary-judgment motions and motions based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies.
The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Kendrid’s remaining claims.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.