Thompson v. Allison

Background

Sekou Kwane Thompson, a prisoner housed at Correctional Training Facility (CTF), filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Thompson had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The complaint named California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation director Kathleen Allison; CTF wardens Louis Martinez and Craig Koeing; facility captains J. Ortega and T. Mak; correctional counselors A. Esparaza and M. Creamer; and classification staff representative A. Hernandez.

Thompson alleged that Ortega and Esparza referred him for an adverse transfer to a higher-security facility, Hernandez approved him for CTF Level II housing, and Mak and Creamer affirmed the housing move. He alleged that a prison official then moved a known violent Level II prisoner into his cell and that the cellmate attacked him on October 24, 2021. Thompson sought compensatory and punitive damages, a declaration that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, and an injunction concerning the housing of Level I inmates in Level II facilities.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations that a federal right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state authority. It also stated that a supervisor is not liable merely because the supervisor oversaw someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court further noted that conclusory allegations about unconstitutional policies are not enough to establish supervisory liability. The opinion text provided does not clearly identify which defendants were the subject of the statement that Thompson had made no claims against them.

The court specifically held that Thompson failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to inmate safety against Ortega, Mak, Esparaza, Creamer, and Hernandez. To state that claim, a prisoner must allege both an objectively serious deprivation and that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s safety. The court found that, apart from the general allegation that Level I inmates should not be housed in Level II housing, the complaint did not explain how these defendants knew that placing Thompson in CTF Level II housing exposed him to an excessive risk. It also did not allege that they knew Thompson would be housed with an inmate who had recently attacked a prior cellmate or that they were aware of a specific danger from housing Thompson in Level II.

Disposition

The court granted Thompson leave to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. It ordered him to file the amended complaint within 28 days, using the case caption and number specified in the order and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the prior complaint, must include all claims and defendants Thompson wished to pursue, and could not incorporate the prior complaint by reference.

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. It stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. This was a screening order and did not decide the ultimate merits of the alleged attack or the constitutional claims.