Andrade
- 5:24-cv-07434
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Andrade v. C.D.C.R., the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, dismissing the agency with prejudice and Doe defendants without prejudice.
Emanuel Rodriguez Andrade was given 28 days to file an amended complaint. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was dismissed with prejudice, while the unnamed Doe defendants were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Emanuel Rodriguez Andrade, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued C.D.C.R. under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that shattered glass in a prison shower damaged his eye after staff failed to address it. He also referred to a separate filing as a maritime claim.
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with prejudice because state-agency immunity barred the claims, and dismissed the unnamed Doe defendants without prejudice because Andrade had not identified the individuals involved. The court said unsafe prison conditions like those alleged can support a constitutional claim, but it would not combine allegations from separate pleadings and found the incident was not a maritime claim.
The court, whose signed name is unclear in the supplied text, gave Andrade 28 days to file an amended complaint identifying the relevant individuals and including all claims and defendants he wants to pursue.
The detailed version
- Andrade · No. 5:24-cv-07434
- Jan. 27, 2025
Background
Emanuel Rodriguez Andrade, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That law permits claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court reviewed his complaint under the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Andrade had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The complaint named “C.D.C.R California Department of Corrections and staff responsible for damages” as defendants. Andrade alleged that shattered glass fragments were present in an administrative-segregation shower, that he complained about the condition multiple times, and that defendants negligently failed to repair the shower window or clean up the glass. He alleged that his eye was permanently damaged and sought $150,000 in damages.
Court’s analysis
The court said it would consider only the operative complaint docketed as Dkt. No. 7 and would not piece together a complaint from other filings. It also rejected Andrade’s characterization of the matter as a maritime claim, explaining that the incident did not occur on navigable waters and did not involve traditional maritime activity.
The court stated that failing to address unsafe prison conditions, including shattered glass in a shower door, can state a claim under the Eighth Amendment when a prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an incarcerated person’s health or safety.
The court dismissed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with prejudice because the Eleventh Amendment gives the state and its agencies immunity from the claims described in the order. The court dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice because Andrade had not named the individuals who allegedly knew about the shattered glass and failed to address it.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Andrade was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint must use the caption and case number in the order, state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, include all claims and defendants he wishes to pursue, and not incorporate earlier pleadings by reference. The order states that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the deadline will result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.