Oxley v. Madrigal

Background

Samuel Oxley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued officials and medical staff at the West County Detention Facility under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative pleading was his first amended complaint. The court had previously found that it stated potentially valid claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Eighth Amendment, and for retaliation.

Oxley alleged that, while he was a pretrial detainee, Deputy Madrigal denied him restroom access during a lockdown despite a medical “blue slip” that allowed restroom access. Oxley alleged that he had to defecate in a plastic bag. He further alleged that Deputy Santiago denied him a shower after the incident, that officials were involved in revoking or restricting his restroom accommodation, and that Lieutenant Rossberg asked him to drop his grievance. Oxley also alleged that Madrigal later harassed or threatened him during a cell security check in retaliation for his grievance.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They also requested judicial notice of two public records. The court granted that request.

Rulings on the claims

ADA claim. The defendants argued that Oxley could not bring a Title II ADA claim against individual defendants. The court agreed. It explained that Title II generally addresses discrimination by a public entity, not individuals sued in their individual capacities, and that the complaint did not allege a claim against a public entity. The court granted dismissal of the ADA claim without leave to amend in its discussion, and the conclusion states that the claim was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim.

Eighth Amendment claim. The defendants argued that Oxley was a pretrial detainee and therefore could not pursue an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim. Oxley agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment, governed his conditions-of-confinement allegations. The court granted dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim. It granted leave to amend so Oxley could attempt to plead a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on the denial of restroom and shower access, by alleging facts showing that the denial was not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective and amounted to punishment. The conclusion identifies that amendable Fourteenth Amendment claim as one against Madrigal and Rossberg.

Retaliation claims. A First Amendment retaliation claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the person’s exercise of First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The court granted dismissal of the retaliation claim against Santiago because the complaint did not assert such a claim against him and did not establish retaliatory conduct by him. The conclusion states that this claim was dismissed with prejudice.

The court denied dismissal of the retaliation claim against Rossberg, finding that the first amended complaint sufficiently pleaded that claim. It granted dismissal with leave to amend as to the retaliation claims against Spangler and Madrigal. The court said Oxley could attempt to correct the pleading by adding nonconclusory facts about Spangler’s role in revoking the medical slip and by alleging that Madrigal knew about the grievance, that the grievance was connected to the later conduct, and that the conduct chilled the exercise of Oxley’s First Amendment rights.

Disposition and next steps

The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The ADA claim, Eighth Amendment claim, and retaliation claim against Santiago were dismissed with prejudice. The court granted leave to amend the Fourteenth Amendment claim against Madrigal and Rossberg and the retaliation claims against Spangler and Madrigal. The court denied the motion as to the retaliation claim against Rossberg.

Oxley was ordered to file a second amended complaint within 28 days. The order states that failure to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims, without further notice, and that the case would then proceed on the retaliation claim against Rossberg. The second amended complaint would supersede the earlier complaints, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.