Torres v. Newsome

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened a pro se prisoner’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning COVID-19 exposure and alleged retaliation for filing a grievance. The court found cognizable Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against eight defendants and First Amendment retaliation claims against three defendants, while allowing the plaintiff either to proceed on those claims or file a second amended complaint.

Holdings

1. For screening purposes, plaintiff sufficiently stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Sullivan, MacNaught, Barton, Thorton, Stalter, R. Alkire, Dr. Davis, and Jane Doe #1 based on allegations that they knowingly exposed him to a substantial risk of COVID-19 and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent that risk.
2. For screening purposes, plaintiff sufficiently stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Kelly, Bell, and Gaminchi based on allegations that they took adverse actions because plaintiff filed a prison grievance.
3. The claims against Governor Newsom, St. Andre, Williams, and Dr. Reuter failed because plaintiff alleged only supervisory responsibility and did not allege that those defendants participated in, directed, or knowingly failed to prevent the constitutional violations.
4. Plaintiff’s allegations that R. Alkire, MacNaught, Sullivan, Ramos, Gomez, and B. Alkire participated in retaliation or delayed processing his grievance were insufficient to state a First Amendment or § 1983 claim without specific allegations of wrongdoing or a constitutional right to a particular grievance procedure.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against the identified correctional and medical defendants.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged First Amendment retaliation claims based on plaintiff’s filing of a prison grievance.
3. Whether supervisory officials could be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based solely on their supervisory roles and alleged failure to prevent subordinate misconduct.
4. Whether delay or mishandling of plaintiff’s prison grievance stated an independent constitutional claim.

Disposition

other