Shumate v. Engram

Background

Benjamin T. Shumate, a detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and then filed an amendment. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. He challenged conditions at Sonoma County Main Detention Center and named 19 defendants in the complaint and amendment.

Claims described by the court

Shumate alleged that he was denied time outside his cell and reasonable access to phones, showers, the yard, and shaving supplies. He also raised difficulty accessing the courts, a lack of due process at disciplinary hearings, intentional transmission of diseases, price gouging, transfers out of the county, unavailable administrative remedies, and difficulty practicing his religion.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the case under the federal prisoner-screening statute. It explained that a complaint must give defendants fair notice of the claims and contain enough factual allegations to make entitlement to relief plausible. It also explained that a claim under Section 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law.

The court found that the complaint and amendment presented numerous claims against 19 defendants, but often failed to identify which defendant was associated with each claim or how that defendant violated Shumate’s rights. It instructed Shumate to focus a new complaint on a few related claims. It also stated that unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different lawsuits, and that there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. According to the court, denying an inmate grievance does not by itself state a federal claim.

Ruling

Judge Robert M. Illman dismissed the complaint and amendment with leave to amend. The court ordered that a second amended complaint be filed within 28 days of the order’s filing date, using the required caption and case number and labeling the first page “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The new complaint must include all claims Shumate wishes to pursue because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint, and it may not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court warned that failure to amend within the deadline will result in dismissal of the case. It also stated that failure to keep the court informed of an address change or otherwise prosecute the case may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.