Slamen v. Castenada

Background

Mark Slamen brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials. He alleged that on October 18, 2020, while he was handcuffed, shackled, and in a wheelchair at Salinas Valley State Prison, H. Castenada and other officers dropped him face-first onto dirt. Slamen alleged that Castenada applied pressure to his back or side, breaking two ribs, and that other officers injured his face. He also alleged that he was denied medical treatment, placed in administrative segregation, and later transferred to another facility where medical staff determined that his rib cage was broken.

Slamen claimed that the conduct violated the Eighth Amendment through excessive force and delayed medical care, and that it violated the First Amendment through retaliation for reporting staff misconduct to attorneys involved in the Coleman and Armstrong class actions. The caption names the defendant as H. Castenada; the body of the opinion generally spells the name Castaneda.

Administrative exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to properly complete available prison administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. Slamen filed a grievance concerning the October 2020 incident. The grievance alleged excessive force but did not allege delayed medical care or retaliation, and it did not mention his communications with class-action attorneys.

The prison later denied the grievance as unsupported. The defendants conceded that this response was final for the excessive-force allegations and that Slamen was considered to have exhausted his excessive-force claims against Castenada. The court concluded that he had not exhausted the First Amendment retaliation or Eighth Amendment medical-care claims.

Ruling

Although Slamen filed no opposition, the court did not grant the motion solely because it was unopposed. It reviewed the motion papers and found that they showed no genuine dispute of material fact. Judge William H. Orrick granted defendant Castenada’s motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment medical-care claims.

The court stated that Slamen had exhausted his excessive-force claim and referred that claim to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement. The court also dismissed all claims against defendant Valencia. The action was stayed until further order, and the clerk was directed to terminate Valencia as a defendant and terminate all pending motions. The order warned that failure to attend a settlement conference or comply with Judge Illman’s instructions could result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.