Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Domenic Betts, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. A magistrate judge screened his second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires dismissal of prisoner claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from immune defendants. At screening the allegations are taken as true, so what follows are Betts's allegations, not findings.
The complaint pleads eleven claims against many correctional staff. Betts alleges that officers ignored his warnings and housed him with dangerous inmates, leading to a sexual assault and broken bones; that an officer wrote false sex-offender rules violation reports and posted a tag on his door, after which inmates attacked him; that an officer grabbed his private parts during a search despite a female-search designation; that an officer ignored his statement that he would hang himself; that incontinence supplies were taken; and that officers beat him on August 18, 2026.
Betts also asked the court to issue a subpoena to defendant Schultz for surveillance and body camera footage of the August 18 incident and a cell search that day. The magistrate judge ruled on that request and the doe-defendant issue by order, and made findings and recommendations on two claims for Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections are due fourteen days after service.
The Court’s Holding
Applying Farmer v. Brennan and related Eighth Amendment authority, the court found claims one through nine potentially colorable. Failure-to-protect claims proceed against Stratton, three officers named Gonzales, Schram and Whisler, Captain Gonzales, and Schultz and Johnson. Claim two proceeds against Hunt on equal protection and Eighth Amendment theories, the latter based on a false sex-offender accusation. Claim six proceeds against Hord for excessive force and sexual assault, claim seven against Officer Gonzales over suicide risk, claim eight against Schultz over incontinence supplies, and claim nine against Hord, Gonzales, Regalo and a doe defendant for excessive force. Potentially colorable means the allegations pass screening, not that they are proven. The court said it would separately order service.
The court recommended dismissing, without further leave to amend, the Eighth Amendment and due process claims in claim ten and the Bane Act claim in claim eleven. On due process, it found the grounds unclear and noted that a false rules violation report is not itself a constitutional violation if the prisoner receives procedural due process at the hearing. On the Eighth Amendment, claim ten alleged no denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. On the Bane Act, Betts said he presented a government claim on September 23, 2026, but filed his pleading on October 15, 2026, before the 45-day period for the Board to act had run. Because timely presentation is an element of the claim, the court recommended dismissal, citing his repeated chances to amend. These are recommendations only, and nothing is dismissed unless the district judge adopts them.
The court granted Betts ninety days to identify the doe defendant, suggesting a CDCR Form 22 or records requests, followed by a notice of substitution; otherwise it will recommend dismissal of that defendant. It denied the subpoena request because Betts did not show the footage is not equally available to him or obtainable through a properly served request for production. A discovery and scheduling order will follow once defendants appear.
Key Takeaways
- Passing screening means the allegations are taken as true; it is not a ruling on the merits.
- A false rules violation report alone did not support a due process claim here, absent a denial of procedural protections at the hearing.
- The court treated timely government claim presentation as an element of a Bane Act damages claim and recommended dismissal because suit was filed before the 45-day period ran.
- A prisoner seeking Marshal service of a subpoena must show the evidence is not equally available and not obtainable through ordinary discovery.
- A doe defendant must be identified within ninety days, or the court will recommend dismissal of that defendant.
Why It Matters
The order screens claim by claim: nine claims proceed, while the two recommended dismissals rest on narrow grounds. Only the doe-defendant deadline and the subpoena denial are operative rulings; the dismissal recommendations remain subject to objections and district judge review.
Because this is an unadopted magistrate judge recommendation that relies largely on district court decisions, it carries little precedential weight beyond illustrating how this court approaches screening, claim presentation and subpoena requests.