Oliver v. Madsen

Background

Anthony Wayne Oliver, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the Correctional Training Facility. The second amended complaint was the operative complaint. It asserted an amended retaliation claim against A. Stephens, an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against H. Madsen and S. Mora, and state-law claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Madsen and Mora.

The complaint alleged that Oliver helped another inmate file a prison grievance concerning Madsen. Oliver claimed that Stephens later issued a false serious rules violation report in retaliation. He also alleged that Madsen and Mora handcuffed him, took his cane, refused to call for a wheelchair, and escorted him to a holding cell despite his claimed medical and mobility restrictions, causing pain and aggravating prior injuries. Oliver alleged that he had presented his state-law claims to the Government Claims Program, but the defendants argued that the claims were untimely.

The second amended complaint did not name Warden Craig Koenig or allege facts against him. The court therefore directed that Koenig be terminated from the action.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), although the court analyzed the pleading sufficiency of the claims under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard as well. They argued that Stephens was entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim, that Oliver had not adequately stated a retaliation claim, and that the negligence-based claims were barred by the California Government Claims Act.

The court held that Stephens was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. Assuming that Stephens retaliated against Oliver for helping another inmate file a grievance, the court concluded that a reasonable officer would not have been on notice that this conduct violated a clearly established right. The court therefore granted dismissal of the retaliation claim based on qualified immunity and did not address the defendants’ alternative argument that the complaint failed to state a retaliation claim.

The court also dismissed the negligence and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims as untimely. Even assuming Oliver’s opposing evidence could be considered, the court concluded that the evidence showed he did not file suit within six months after the Government Claims Program rejected his claim. Oliver stated that the claim was rejected on March 23, 2020, giving him until September 23, 2020, to file suit. The action was initiated after that deadline. The court ordered that these state-law claims be dismissed with prejudice as time barred.

Motion to Strike

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike paragraph 27 and Exhibits E through H, which concerned other inmates’ confidential grievances, grievance decisions, and a declaration from another inmate. Oliver did not oppose this request. The court found the material immaterial to the remaining Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim and granted the motion to strike.

Disposition and Remaining Claim

The court granted the defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. The retaliation claim against Stephens was dismissed with prejudice as barred by qualified immunity. The negligence and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against Madsen and Mora were dismissed with prejudice as time barred. The motion to strike paragraph 27 and Exhibits E through H was granted.

The case proceeds on Oliver’s remaining Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Madsen and Mora. The court ordered the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 56 days, or to notify the court that the claim could not be resolved through such a motion. The parties could alternatively seek referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program within 28 days. The court set additional briefing deadlines for any summary-judgment motion.