McKinney v. CamaraMcKinney v. Camara
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Keith McKinney‘s First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (FAC) filed pursuant to
I. BACKGROUND
McKinney alleges the following facts in the FAC, which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of screening. See Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2014).
Beginning sometime in 2019, McKinney sought to participate in an unspecified program at HCF. Dkt. No. 18, at pg. 5. According to McKinney, he must complete the program to be eligible for parole. Id. McKinney wrote many letters to “her,” but he was not immediately admitted to the program. Id. McKinney alleges that “she” admitted “other inmates” to the program after a single letter. Id.
At some point, McKinney missed two program classes. Id. at pg. 6. When he attempted to rejoin the program, Dr. Hayes asked him to leave. Id.; id. at pg. 7. Dr. Hayes did this, McKinney says, “to curry favor with her boss [Dr.] Camara.” Id. at pg. 7. McKinney never received an explanation why he was not allowed to rejoin the program. Id. McKinney is black, and he alleges that Drs. Camara and Burkett seem either to kick black inmates out of the program or to force them to quit.3 Id. at pg. 6.
Since May 2025, McKinney has been on a “waitlist” to rejoin the program, while other inmates have been allowed to begin the program with a class as small
McKinney commenced this lawsuit after signing the original Complaint on March 13, 2026. Dkt. No. 1, at pg. 8. After receiving the filing fee, Dkt. No. 14, the Court dismissed the original Complaint on June 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 16.
The Court received the FAC on July 8, 2026. DKt. No. 18. In the FAC, McKinney alleges that Drs. Camara, Burkett, and Hayes violated his rights by delaying psychological care (Count I) and discriminating against him because he is black (Counts I and II). Id. at pgs. 5–6. He seeks injunctive relief and two million dollars from each Defendant in “100% pure gold.” Id. at pg. 8.
II. STATUTORY SCREENING
The Court is required to screen all prisoner pleadings against government officials pursuant to
Screening under
In conducting this screening, the Court liberally construes pro se litigants’ pleadings and resolves all doubts in their favor. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The Court must grant leave to amend if it appears the plaintiff can correct the defects in the complaint. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. When a claim cannot be saved by amendment, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See Sylvia Landfield Tr. v. City of Los Angeles, 729 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2013).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Framework for Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
“Section 1983 provides a cause of action against ‘[e]very person who, under color of’ law deprives another of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.‘” Cornel v. Hawaii, 37 F.4th 527, 531 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting
B. Eighth Amendment – Medical Care
McKinney alleges in Count I that Drs. Camara, Burkett, and Hayes withheld “timely psychological care by delaying treatment.” Dkt. No. 18, at pg. 5.
To establish a claim of inadequate medical care, a convicted prisoner must show both a “serious medical need” and that an official‘s response to the need was “deliberately indifferent.” Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 785-86 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
A serious medical need is present when, for example, the “‘failure to treat a prisoner‘s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. at 785 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Serious medical needs can relate to physical, dental and mental health.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Even with a serious medical need, the plaintiff must also allege facts showing deliberate indifference. “To show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show that the course of treatment the [official] chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the [official] chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff‘s health.” Id. at 786
“An inadvertent or negligent failure to provide adequate medical care is insufficient to establish a claim under the Eighth Amendment.” Edmo, 935 F.3d at 786 (citation omitted). “In other words, [m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original).
At this point, McKinney has not identified a serious medical need. To the extent McKinney suggests that he required “psychological care,” he does not say why this was so. Nor has he plausibly alleged that any Defendant was deliberately indifferent to such a need. For example, McKinney does not allege that he ever complained to any Defendant about a medical need, what he said to them, and how they responded. Nor is it clear how each Defendant allegedly delayed McKinney‘s initial participation in the program. While McKinney alleges that he wrote “her” many letters, and “she” did not admit him to the program, McKinney does not say to whom he is referring. In addition, it is unclear how the program mentioned in the FAC relates to McKinney‘s “psychological care,” if it does at all. McKinney‘s Eighth Amendment claim based on the medical care he received at HCF is therefore DISMISSED with leave to amend.
McKinney alleges in Counts I and II that Drs. Camara and Burkett violated his equal protection rights by discriminating against him on account of his race. Dkt. No. 18, at pgs. 5–6.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In general, “[t]o state a claim under
At this point, McKinney has not plausibly alleged that he was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals based on his race. Although McKinney alleges that Drs. Camara and Burkett “only seem[] to kick black inmates out [of the program] or force them to quit,” Dkt. No. 18, at pg. 6, such
D. First Amendment – Retaliation
McKinney suggests that he has been retaliated against by being forced to eat last and only being allowed to shave once a week. Dkt. No. 18, at pg. 8.
“[A] prisoner can make a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation by alleging five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner‘s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate‘s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th 978, 1001 (9th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Regarding the second element, “a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind the defendant‘s conduct.” See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Stephen v. Williams, Case No. 15-cv-03107-
At this point, it is unclear what adverse action, if any, Drs. Camara, Burkett, and Hayes took against McKinney because of protected conduct. Although McKinney suggests that he eats last and can shave only once a week, he does not say what each Defendant has to do with either of these facts. In addition, McKinney has not plausibly alleged that any Defendant took an adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. Finally, McKinney does not allege that the exercise of his First Amendment rights has been chilled, nor does he allege that the doctors’ actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Any retaliation claims against Drs. Camara, Burkett, and Hayes are therefore DISMISSED with leave to amend.
IV. LEAVE TO AMEND
The FAC, Dkt. No. 18, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. McKinney must file any amended pleading on or before August 19, 2026. McKinney may not expand his claims beyond those already alleged herein or add new claims without explaining how any new claims relate to the claims alleged in the FAC. Claims that do not properly relate to those in the FAC are subject to dismissal.
V. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
If McKinney fails to file an amended complaint or is unable to amend his claims to cure their deficiencies, this dismissal may count as a “strike” under
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
(1) The Court DISMISSES the FAC, ECF No. 18, with leave to amend. If McKinney wants to proceed with this action, he must file an amended pleading that cures the noted deficiencies in his claims on or before August 19, 2026.
(2) McKinney‘s “Motion for Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi to Remove Herself From This Case,” Dkt. No. 19, and his request for appointed counsel, Dkt. No. 18, at pg. 8, are DENIED.
(3) ALTERNATIVELY, instead of filing an amended pleading, McKinney may inform the Court in writing on or before August 19, 2026, that he would like to voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to
(4) Failure to comply with these deadlines may result in AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL of this suit without further notice, and McKinney may incur a strike under
(5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send McKinney a blank prisoner civil rights complaint form so that he can comply with this order if he wants to pursue any of his claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
Senior U.S. District Judge
KEITH MCKINNEY VS. DR. GINA CAMARA; et al.; CV 26-00135 LEK-WRP; ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND