Khan v. Madsen

Background

Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Correctional Training Facility. The court reviewed his final amended complaint during the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint. Khan had paid the full filing fee.

Khan alleged events beginning in September 2019, including an invasive search by A. Stephens; harassment and retaliation by H. Madsen; false rules-violation reports; loss of property; disposal of religious materials; placement and retention in administrative segregation; unsafe or unsanitary segregation conditions; alleged unfair disciplinary proceedings; and interference by Enrique Galvan with attorney communication, legal property, and access to the courts. He listed 28 counts and requested suspension or restoration of lost good-conduct credits.

Court’s analysis

The court held that claims challenging disciplinary proceedings that caused the loss of good-conduct credits could not proceed under § 1983 because restoring those credits would necessarily result in a faster release. Those claims had to be brought in a separate petition challenging the legality or duration of the imprisonment. The court also explained that a damages claim based on the loss of credits could proceed only after the relevant conviction or imprisonment had been invalidated as required by the rule discussed in the opinion. The court dismissed without prejudice all claims challenging the disciplinary actions that resulted in the loss of credits, including claims against Madsen and others involved in the disciplinary hearings and appeals.

For the remaining § 1983 allegations, the court identified pleading deficiencies. It found that the bodily-privacy claim against Stephens did not allege a lack of legitimate prison justification, the required state of mind, or harm. It found that the property allegations against Madsen appeared to involve a random and unauthorized deprivation for which state remedies were available. The religious-freedom allegations did not identify the religious materials taken or explain how their loss burdened Khan’s religious practice.

The court further found that Khan did not identify the official responsible for the allegedly deficient segregation conditions. Regarding the administrative-segregation review, the court stated that a prisoner has no right to present a defense or witnesses at that periodic review unless the review was merely a meaningless gesture. The access-to-courts claim against Galvan did not allege an actual injury, and any claim based on delay in filing this still-pending action was not yet ready for decision.

Joinder and disposition

The court also ruled that the complaint improperly joined unrelated claims and defendants. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, multiple claims may be brought against one defendant, but claims involving different defendants must arise from the same transaction or related transactions, or otherwise satisfy the rule’s requirements. The court gave as examples the unrelated timing and participants in the search by Stephens, the property claim against Madsen, the segregation allegations, and the access-to-courts claim against Galvan.

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Khan was given one opportunity to file a second amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The new complaint could not include claims challenging lost good-conduct credits and could not join unrelated claims in violation of Rules 18(a) and 20(a). The order stated that the second amended complaint would replace the earlier complaints, that omitted claims and defendants would no longer be part of the action, and that failure to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action for violating the joinder rules.