Wolinski v. Moseley

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Krzysztof Wolinski leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his prisoner civil-rights complaint. The court allows certain Eighth Amendment medical-care and retaliation claims against Dr. Blaisdell, and a due-process claim concerning educational credits against J. Cota and Rafael Acevedo, while dismissing the remaining claims and defendants. Wolinski is permitted to amend or proceed on the surviving claims.

Holdings

1. A prisoner with no average monthly balance, no average monthly deposits, and no available balance may proceed in forma pauperis without an initial partial filing fee, while remaining liable for the statutory filing fee through installment payments.
2. The complaint is screened under the same plausibility standard used for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and a claim survives if its factual allegations plausibly state a legally cognizable claim.
3. Wolinski plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Blaisdell based on the alleged failure to provide prescribed post-surgical pain medication and care, but not based on the alleged refusal to replace the air mattress.
4. The retaliation claim survives screening against Dr. Blaisdell but is dismissed as to the other defendants because only the allegations against Blaisdell plausibly connected an adverse action to protected conduct.
5. The complaint fails to state ADA or Rehabilitation Act claims because it does not plausibly allege a disability or discrimination by reason of disability, and the ADA claim is also improperly asserted against individual defendants.
6. The property-deprivation, prison-transfer, grievance-procedure, and most other due-process theories fail, but Wolinski plausibly stated a due-process claim against Cota and Acevedo based on alleged denial of California educational merit credits.
7. The access-to-courts claim is dismissed because Wolinski did not plausibly allege actual injury or prejudice to a nonfrivolous underlying legal claim.
8. The equal-protection claim is dismissed because the complaint does not plausibly allege intentional discrimination based on membership in a protected class.
9. The § 1983, § 1981(c), § 1985(3), and § 1986 conspiracy claims are dismissed because the allegations are conclusory and do not plausibly show an agreement, meeting of the minds, personal involvement, or the required discriminatory animus.
10. The complaint plausibly states an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Dr. Blaisdell based on the alleged deliberate withholding of prescribed post-surgical pain medication, but the remaining state-law claims are dismissed as conclusory, legally unavailable, or inadequately pleaded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wolinski should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and whether an initial partial filing fee was required.
2. Whether the complaint stated a plausible Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on denial or delay of post-surgical medical care.
3. Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against the defendants.
4. Whether the complaint stated claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
5. Whether the alleged property deprivation, attempted prison transfers, grievance-related conduct, and denial of educational credits stated Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims.
6. Whether the complaint stated an access-to-courts claim, equal-protection claim, or conspiracy claim.
7. Whether the complaint stated viable state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of California statutes, regulations, and the California Constitution.

Disposition

other