Stephen Baker v. A.W. Carter, et al.

Summary

The court conducted an initial screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of Stephen Baker’s pro se civil-rights complaint concerning alleged failure to protect, retaliation, and denial of due process while incarcerated. It denied leave to amend, dismissed claims against A.W. Carter without prejudice, dismissed requests for injunctive and declaratory relief as moot, and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim.

Holdings

1. A party may be dropped on just terms under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, and Baker's request to drop all claims against Carter was granted; those claims were dismissed without prejudice.
2. Leave to amend was denied because the proposed amended complaint did not identify any defendants or request relief and therefore failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3).
3. Baker failed to state an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim because he did not plausibly allege an objectively substantial risk of serious harm from his cell assignment or that any defendant was subjectively aware of and deliberately indifferent to such a risk.
4. Baker failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because he did not allege that Smith or Jameson took an adverse action against him because of protected conduct, including any failure to protect him.
5. Baker's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were dismissed as moot because he had been transferred to another facility.
6. Baker failed to state a due process claim based on the denial of his disciplinary appeal because twenty days in punitive segregation, without more, did not impose an atypical and significant hardship creating a protected liberty interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Baker should be permitted to amend his complaint to drop all claims against A.W. Carter.
2. Whether the proposed amended complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3).
3. Whether Baker plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim.
4. Whether Baker plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim.
5. Whether Baker plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim based on his disciplinary conviction and twenty-day segregation term.
6. Whether his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot after his transfer to another facility.

Disposition

dismissed