Thompson v. Allison

Background

Sekou Kwane Thompson, a prisoner housed at the Correctional Training Facility, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against state actors for violating constitutional rights.

The court had previously screened Thompson’s amended complaint. It dismissed with prejudice the Eighth Amendment claim based on his alleged housing on an NDPF or Level II facility despite his Level I classification. It also dismissed with prejudice the claims against Gipson, Koenig, Ortega, Mak, Creamer, Esparza, and Hernandez because those defendants were named only in connection with that claim.

The court also dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim concerning an official’s alleged deliberate-indifference decision to house Thompson with an inmate known to be violent because the official was unidentified and could not be served. The court gave Thompson leave to file a second amended complaint naming that official.

Extension Request

Thompson previously received an extension until December 6, 2024. He then requested a second 30-day extension. He said he had submitted a Public Records Act request to litigation coordinator Enrique Galvan and contacted the Office of Labor Relations to obtain the identity of the relevant correctional officer. He attached a records request seeking documents concerning the move of inmate Raymond Bankhead and the officers who approved it.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Thompson was making a good-faith effort to identify the officer and granted the second extension. The court also expressed concern that Thompson might not be able to state a valid Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim even if he identified the officer. Such a claim requires facts showing that the officer knew of an obvious or substantial risk of serious harm and nevertheless lacked a reasonable justification for exposing Thompson to that risk. The court stated that negligence or gross negligence is not enough and that conclusory allegations do not state a constitutional claim.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Thompson’s request for a second extension of time to file his second amended complaint. It GRANTED a final extension until January 31, 2025. If Thompson did not file the complaint by that date, the action would be dismissed. The court stated that the dismissal would be without prejudice to Thompson filing a motion to reopen after identifying the relevant individual, accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint naming that person.

The court also REQUESTED that the Correctional Training Facility assist Thompson in identifying the relevant individual and directed the clerk to send the facility’s litigation coordinator a courtesy copy of the order. The order terminated docket entry 18.