Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Donell Haynie, a California prisoner at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center proceeding without an attorney, sued two correctional officers, T. Ascencio and C. Bass, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint. It alleges that at 5:30 a.m. on September 1, 2026, the officers woke Haynie to search his cell, and Ascencio ordered him not to dress and to step out immediately. Haynie, allegedly not yet fully conscious, ignored the order and began dressing. Ascencio then entered the cell, tried to grab his arm, and punched him in the side of the face, remaining inside for about 14 seconds. Bass allegedly stayed outside, in a position to see and hear what happened, and did not intervene.
The complaint further alleges that prison policy required a manager or the administrative officer of the day to authorize and attend any controlled use of force, and that none was summoned. It alleges that Haynie received medical care two days later and that Ascencio's Rules Violation Report did not accurately document the entry or the force. Haynie also alleges that on the day of the incident he gave Bass a form seeking return of confiscated property that stated he intended to sue, and that on September 8, 2026, Bass ordered a search of his cell. These are allegations only; the court made no factual findings. Haynie was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
The Court’s Holding
Acting under the prisoner-complaint screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and construing the pleading liberally, the court concluded that the First Amended Complaint states claims capable of judicial determination against both officers. It recognized five claims: Eighth Amendment excessive force against Ascencio; Eighth Amendment failure to intervene against Bass; First Amendment retaliation against Bass based on the September 8 cell search; a Bane Act claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 against Ascencio; and intentional infliction of emotional distress against both defendants. The court relied on Whitley v. Albers and Cunningham v. Gates for the Eighth Amendment claims and on the five-element test of Rhodes v. Robinson for retaliation.
On the state-law claims, the court reasoned that an unnecessary punch to the face plausibly shows violence interfering with the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, which satisfies the Bane Act's elements. It reasoned that the same allegations, liberally construed, suffice for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Hughes v. Pair. The order is not a ruling on the merits and dismisses nothing. It directs service through the CDCR e-service program. Defendants' summary judgment or other dispositive motion is due February 1, 2027, accompanied by Rand v. Rowland notice. Haynie's opposition is due March 1, 2027, and the reply is due March 15, 2027. The motion will be deemed submitted on the reply date without a hearing unless the court orders otherwise. Discovery may proceed under the Federal Rules without further court order, and Haynie is warned that failing to keep the court informed of his address or to comply with orders may lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Key Takeaways
- Passing § 1915A screening means only that the allegations, taken as true and read liberally, state plausible claims; it does not decide whether they are true.
- The court let the excessive force claim proceed even though the complaint admits Haynie ignored an order to step out, and the order does not address whether the force was justified.
- Bass's alleged position outside the cell, with a view of and ability to hear the incident, supported the failure-to-intervene claim, and an alleged stated intent to sue followed by a cell search supported retaliation.
- Defendants must move for summary judgment by February 1, 2027, or tell the court beforehand that the case cannot be resolved that way.
Why It Matters
This is a routine but instructive screening order. It lets federal and state claims move forward together because they rest on the same alleged incident, and it treats the Bane Act's violence-based interference element as satisfied by an alleged unnecessary punch. Because the order finds only that the claims are plausible, it carries no precedential weight on the merits, and the officers remain free to contest the facts, including Haynie's own allegation that he ignored the order.
Still open are whether the force was needed, whether Bass had a realistic opportunity to intervene, whether the search was retaliatory and lacked a legitimate correctional purpose, and whether the Bane Act and emotional distress claims hold up on an evidentiary record. The signature block is dated October 27, 2027, while the docket shows filing on October 27, 2026; the later year appears to be a typographical error.