Falls v. Campbell

Background

Raiquan K. Falls, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sergeant E. Campbell, Correction Officers A. Pullen, Goodenough, and Cardwell, and Lieutenant Penney. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing lawsuits against state actors for certain constitutional violations. He alleged excessive force and a conspiracy to deprive him of protection from excessive force, allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment, and denial of procedural due process, allegedly violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case concerned events at the Orange County Correctional Facility on July 4, 2016. According to the opinion, Falls refused an order to kneel on his bed while Sergeant Campbell delivered dinner trays. After Falls said he was thinking about taking his life, officers responded to his cell and restrained him. Falls testified that officers tackled or struck him, used their knees against him, and that Sergeant Campbell punched and kicked him in the face. The opinion also describes Defendants’ evidence that the officers physically subdued Falls after an officer reported that Falls appeared to be attempting suicide.

Falls did not file papers opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court nevertheless independently reviewed the record and explained that summary judgment could not be entered automatically merely because a motion was unopposed. Defendants had served Falls with a notice explaining the consequences of failing to respond.

Exhaustion of the Excessive-Force and Conspiracy Claims

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available prison grievance procedures before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. The court found that a grievance procedure existed at the facility and applied to Falls’s excessive-force claim. The procedure required a written grievance within five days, followed by a possible appeal.

Falls admitted that he never filed a grievance specifically about the July 4 incident. He argued that officials denied him a grievance form, paper, and a pen, and that he could not safely access the grievance box. The court rejected these explanations based on the record. It found that Falls knew how to use the grievance system, had used it before and after the incident, received a grievance form during a disciplinary hearing, and had access to paper and a pen during the five-day filing period. The court also found that his written mention of the incident in a disciplinary-hearing document did not satisfy the facility’s required grievance process.

The court concluded that Falls had not shown that the grievance process was unavailable to him. It therefore granted summary judgment to Defendants on the excessive-force claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court applied the same reasoning to the conspiracy claim, even though Defendants had not specifically argued in their motion papers that the conspiracy claim should be dismissed on that basis. Because administrative remedies were no longer available, the court dismissed both claims with prejudice.

Procedural-Due-Process Claim

Falls asserted his procedural-due-process claim only against Lieutenant Penney. Defendants notified the court that Penney had died. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25, when a party dies, a motion to substitute the proper representative must be made within 90 days after proper service of a statement noting the death.

The court repeatedly told Falls that he needed to serve and file a motion to substitute Kathleen Penney, identified in the order as the executor of Lieutenant Penney’s estate. Although Falls had initially requested substitution, he did not properly serve and file the required motion after the court gave him additional instructions. More than 90 days passed after proper service of the statement noting Lieutenant Penney’s death. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the procedural-due-process claim and dismissed it under Rule 25.

Disposition

Judge Andrew E. Krause granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Defendants and close the case. The court expressly stated that it did not reach the merits of any of Falls’s claims.