Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Freeman Allen Felder, a prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He named the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, its Office of Appeals, and numerous correctional, medical, and appeals officials connected with Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. His allegations concerned events between January 2024 and August 2025, and he sought damages and injunctive relief.
The complaint described several uses of force, including a cell door allegedly closing on Felder, an alleged beating by Officer K. Juarez and other officers, and an April 2025 incident in which officers allegedly stripped and exposed him. Felder also alleged retaliation for grievances, temporary loss of his wheelchair, failures to protect him, false disciplinary reports, and discrimination connected to disability and transgender status. These were allegations screened for plausibility, not findings that the events occurred.
Because Felder was a prisoner seeking IFP status, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. It granted IFP status, assessed no initial partial filing fee based on the submitted account information, and directed collection of the full $350 filing fee through monthly payments. The court also noted that Felder’s transfer to another prison affected his request for injunctive relief concerning conditions at RJD, while damages claims against individual officials remained subject to screening.
The Court’s Holding
Applying the failure-to-state-a-claim standard, the court found sufficient allegations of Eighth Amendment excessive force against H. Villegas, K. Juarez, D. Desiderio, H. Razo, A. Ruelas, and A. Lewis. It also found the allegations concerning Ruelas and Lewis sufficient to proceed as an unreasonable strip-search claim. The court distinguished the allegation that J. Garcia grabbed Felder’s walker, explaining that the complaint did not allege force against Felder’s person or a physical injury from that incident.
The court further allowed First Amendment retaliation claims against Villegas and J. Reyes to proceed. Felder alleged that each took adverse action after he filed grievances, and the court found the timing and alleged physical harm sufficient at screening. By contrast, the retaliation allegations against Garcia and Heraldez lacked a plausible causal connection to protected conduct because Felder did not allege that they knew of an earlier grievance or staff complaint.
The remaining claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Allegations that Martinez, Davis, and Perez watched Villegas did not establish personal participation or deliberate indifference. The wheelchair allegations did not plausibly show that medical defendants consciously disregarded an excessive risk, particularly because Felder received a walker and later regained wheelchair authorization. The disciplinary allegations did not describe an atypical and significant hardship or establish that false reports alone violated due process. Broad disability and transgender discrimination assertions also were not tied to adequately pleaded individual violations, and some named parties were not mentioned in any factual allegations.
Key Takeaways
- The surviving claims are excessive-force and retaliation claims against H. Villegas, K. Juarez, D. Desiderio, H. Razo, A. Ruelas, A. Lewis, and J. Reyes, as specified in the order.
- The court dismissed the other claims at screening but did not enter a final judgment ending the entire action.
- Felder received 45 days either to file a notice electing to proceed only on the surviving claims or to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies.
- An amended complaint must stand on its own and reallege any claims Felder intends to preserve, including the claims that survived the original screening.
- If Felder does nothing within the deadline, the court will enter a final order dismissing the presently dismissed claims and proceed on the claims that were not dismissed.
Why It Matters
The order separates plausible constitutional claims from allegations that lack the necessary personal involvement, culpable mental state, protected liberty interest, or causal connection. Its screening analysis shows why descriptions of force and grievance-related retaliation survived while bystander liability, disagreements over medical equipment, and false disciplinary reports did not.
The decision also preserves a structured path forward rather than immediately terminating the case. Felder can narrow the action to the surviving defendants or amend, but amendment carries waiver consequences for defendants and claims omitted from the new pleading. Any amended complaint will undergo another preliminary screening before the court determines whether Marshal service is warranted.