Kakowski v. Macomber

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Brian Kakowski’s Second Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court rejected the alleged Eighth Amendment, due process, and First Amendment retaliation claims as insufficiently pleaded, but granted one final opportunity to amend. Plaintiff was ordered to file a complete Third Amended Complaint by December 30, 2025.

Holdings

1. The Second Amended Complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants subjected Plaintiff to conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm or acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. Allegations that kitchen practices caused skin irritation were insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
2. The complaint failed to state a supervisory-liability claim against Secretary Macomber and Warden Hill because it did not allege an underlying constitutional violation or a sufficient connection between either supervisor’s conduct and the alleged violation.
3. The complaint did not plausibly allege a due process violation arising from Plaintiff’s removal from the CGA group or the resulting loss of custody credits because it did not identify a protected liberty or property interest, an atypical and significant hardship, or a deprivation that would inevitably shorten the sentence.
4. The complaint did not plausibly allege a First Amendment retaliation claim because it lacked factual allegations showing that Defendant Hernandez acted with a retaliatory motive or that Plaintiff’s grievance was a substantial or motivating factor in the removal decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment claim based on unsanitary kitchen conditions and the defendants’ alleged failure to train and supervise.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the CDCR Secretary and prison warden.
3. Whether removal from the CGA group plausibly implicated a protected liberty or property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that removal from the CGA group was retaliatory conduct in violation of the First Amendment.

Disposition

dismissed