Barksdale v. Smith

Background

Kenneth D. Barksdale, a state prisoner, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. He sued prison staff at San Quentin State Prison. The court had previously dismissed his complaint with permission to amend it and warned that failing to respond would lead to dismissal of claims against certain defendants while the remaining valid claims continued. Barksdale did not file an amended complaint within the allowed time.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

After screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court identified two cognizable claims, meaning claims sufficient to continue past the initial review:

- An excessive-force claim against a John Doe correctional officer based on the officer’s actions while removing Barksdale from his cell on May 23, 2023. - A failure-to-protect claim against Sgt. Ripenburger and other unidentified officers who were present and allegedly failed to intervene.

The court stated that Barksdale could use discovery—the exchange of information and evidence in the case—to identify the John Doe defendants. He was directed to file a motion replacing those placeholder names with the defendants’ proper names no later than 56 days after the order was filed. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the claims against the John Doe defendants for failure to state a claim for relief.

Rulings and Case Schedule

The court dismissed Warden Oak Smith, Lt. Torress, and Officer Pacheco from the action because Barksdale had failed to state a cognizable claim against them. The case would proceed against Sgt. Ripenburger and the John Doe defendants on the claims identified above.

The court directed that Sgt. Ripenburger be served at San Quentin State Prison through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service process. It ordered the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion within 91 days of the order’s filing. Barksdale’s opposition would be due 28 days after that motion, and any reply would be due 14 days after the opposition. The court also stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one and reminded Barksdale that he was responsible for prosecuting the case and complying with court orders.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order was a procedural screening and case-management ruling. It did not decide whether Barksdale ultimately proved the excessive-force or failure-to-protect claims.