Coronel v. Havard

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screens a state inmate’s complaint alleging that a correctional officer used excessive force and filed a false disciplinary charge. The court finds the excessive-force allegation cognizable but concludes that the false-disciplinary-charge allegation does not independently state a due process claim. Because the complaint appears to show failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, grants in forma pauperis status, and allows thirty days for amendment or voluntary dismissal.

Holdings

1. For purposes of screening, the allegations that Sergeant Havard became angry and threw plaintiff to the floor, causing bruising and emotional distress, were sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim.
2. The issuance of a false rule-violation report, standing alone, does not give rise to a constitutional due-process claim when the prisoner is afforded procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing.
3. Because the complaint indicated that administrative remedies were available but did not show that plaintiff had submitted or fully appealed either claim, the claims appeared unexhausted; the complaint was therefore dismissed with leave to amend so plaintiff could address exhaustion.
4. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend within thirty days and was required either to file a complete amended complaint addressing the deficiencies or to file a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim.
2. Whether the filing of an allegedly false disciplinary charge, standing alone, stated a due-process claim under § 1983.
3. Whether the apparent failure to exhaust available administrative remedies required dismissal at the screening stage.
4. Whether plaintiff should receive leave to amend.

Disposition

other