Murillo v. Smith

Background

Joaquin Daniel Murillo, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a statute requiring preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against governmental actors. Murillo had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

The complaint named prison correctional officers and administrators as defendants. Murillo alleged that prison officials integrated inmates he described as Bulldog inmates with other inmates, despite a risk of serious assaults. He alleged that, on December 1, 2022, an officer opened his cell door while another inmate was outside the cell, and that the other inmate attacked him. Murillo further alleged that officers did not stop the attack until it was over, issued him a rules-violation report for being in a fight, and caused consequences that included the reapplication of a life sentence and limits on yard access, canteen, rehabilitation, and packages.

The complaint listed claims involving conspiracy, cruel and unusual punishment, falsified legal documents, negligence, due process, arbitrary and capricious punishment, and a violation of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.

Why the Court Dismissed the Complaint

The court identified several deficiencies:

- The complaint listed legal claims without identifying the federal or state legal provision supporting each claim or explaining which conduct supported each claim. - The factual allegations were unclear and conclusory, including the allegations about a conspiracy, the integration policy, and what particular defendants knew about the risk of attack. - The allegations did not state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. The court explained that such a claim requires facts showing both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that a prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate’s safety. The court found that the complaint itself described preventive measures, including a modified program, a weapons search, and efforts to stop the attack, and therefore did not reasonably show that the named defendants knew Murillo faced a substantial risk of serious harm. - Conspiracy is not an independent constitutional violation under § 1983; it must be tied to an underlying constitutional violation. - Supervisors cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because they supervised employees. The complaint did not adequately allege that the supervisory defendants caused the attack. - A violation of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations does not create a private right of action.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and directed Murillo to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The amended complaint must identify each constitutional violation, when it occurred, what happened or did not happen, which defendant was involved, and what federal law or constitutional provision was allegedly violated. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint and must include all claims and defendants Murillo wished to pursue. Failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the stated period would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.