Rodgers v. Shearer

Background

Kyle Rodgers, a detainee at Santa Cruz County Jail proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officers at the jail. His original complaint made general allegations about dangerous hygiene products and food that was not fit for human consumption. The court dismissed those claims with permission to amend so that Rodgers could provide more information.

Rodgers filed an amended complaint. He also filed a separate case making the same allegations against different defendants. The court dismissed that separate case as duplicative and gave Rodgers an opportunity to file a second amended complaint in this case containing all claims and defendants. Rodgers did not file a second amended complaint, so the court reviewed the amended complaint.

Allegations

The amended complaint alleges that the jail requires detainees to use shampoo containing Cocamide DEA. Rodgers alleges that Cocamide DEA is known to cause cancer and that the shampoo provided to detainees lacks the warning label required by California’s Proposition 65. He says he informed jail officials of this concern, but the company supplying the shampoo provided documents contradicting his claim that the product is unsafe.

Screening analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or official and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under state authority.

The court considered the allegations in the light most favorable to Rodgers and took into account that he was detained and representing himself. It held that the amended complaint would not be dismissed at that time and was sufficient to pass initial screening. The court did not decide that Rodgers had proven a constitutional violation or definitively stated a valid claim.

The court noted possible weaknesses in the allegations. It said that Cocamide DEA appears to have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible carcinogen,” and that its inclusion on California’s Proposition 65 list as a “known” carcinogen may be based solely on that classification. The court questioned whether Rodgers had adequately alleged that the shampoo causes cancer, particularly in the amounts used, and noted the allegations suggesting that the Food and Drug Administration permits small amounts of Cocamide DEA in hygiene products. The court stated that defendants may file a motion to dismiss if they believe the allegations are inadequate.

Order

The court ordered the clerk to issue a summons and directed the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint and the order, without requiring advance payment of fees, on Santa Cruz County Sheriff Jim Hart, Chief Daniel Fretias, and Lieutenant Chris Shearer at Santa Cruz County Main Jail.

The court set a schedule for summary-judgment or other dispositive motions. Defendants must file such a motion no later than 56 days after service; Rodgers must respond within 28 days after the motion is filed; and defendants must file any reply within 14 days after Rodgers’s response. The court stated that no hearing would be held unless it later ordered one.

The court allowed discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also required Rodgers to serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders. The court warned that failing to prosecute the case could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).