Edward Androshchuk v. Polayo, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened a state prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging failure to protect and retaliation. The court found a potentially cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Mendoza, dismissed the remaining claims with leave to amend, and permitted the plaintiff to proceed only against Mendoza or file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. The allegations did not plausibly show that Polayo, Ortiz, or Merced acted with deliberate indifference, and they did not adequately allege a sufficiently serious risk, a defendant's deliberate indifference, or more-than-de-minimis injury attributable to the housing assignment against Mendoza or the Doe sergeant.
2. The complaint plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Mendoza.
3. The complaint failed to state the second retaliation claim because it did not allege that a named defendant took the adverse action because of protected conduct, and the reported statement was not alleged to be a grievance or litigation-related communication.
4. All claims other than the cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Mendoza were dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against the correctional officers and sergeants.
2. Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim based on Sergeant Mendoza's alleged threat to withhold assistance because plaintiff had filed grievances and complaints.
3. Whether the complaint stated a separate First Amendment retaliation claim based on plaintiff's report of an attacker's comment and his subsequent five-hour stay in a holding cage.
4. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Disposition

other