Oxley v. Madrigal

Background

Samuel Oxley, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy Madrigal, Deputy Santiago, Sgt. Spangler, and Lt. Rossberg. The operative first amended complaint alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Eighth Amendment, and the First Amendment for retaliation.

Oxley alleged that, during a lockdown at the West County Detention Facility, Deputy Madrigal denied him restroom access even though he had a medical authorization allowing restroom access during lockdowns. Oxley alleged that he had to defecate into a plastic bag. He also alleged that Deputy Santiago denied him a shower and laughed when Oxley sought help. Oxley further alleged that his medical authorization was later revoked, that Lt. Rossberg asked him what could be done to make him drop his grievance, and that Deputy Madrigal later harassed or threatened him during a cell security check.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court granted the defendants’ request to take judicial notice of two public records.

Court’s analysis

Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court explained that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act generally addresses discrimination by a public entity and does not permit a claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities. Oxley’s first amended complaint named individual defendants and did not allege a claim against a public entity. The court therefore determined that the defect could not be cured through amendment and granted dismissal of the Americans with Disabilities Act claim without leave to amend in the discussion section.

Conditions-of-confinement claim. The parties agreed that Oxley was a pretrial detainee. The court held that a pretrial detainee challenges confinement conditions under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth Amendment. The court was not persuaded that the alleged two-and-a-half-hour denial of restroom and shower access necessarily failed as a matter of law. It held that Oxley could attempt to allege facts showing that the denial was not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective and amounted to punishment. The court granted dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim and allowed amendment to attempt to plead a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Madrigal and Santiago.

Retaliation claim. 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 First Amendment rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal, along with the other elements described by the court.

The court granted dismissal of the retaliation claim against Santiago because the complaint did not assert such a claim against him and did not allege retaliatory conduct by him. The court denied dismissal of the retaliation claim against Rossberg, finding the allegations sufficient at the pleading stage. The court granted dismissal of the retaliation claims against Spangler and Madrigal with leave to amend. It said Oxley could try to allege non-conclusory facts showing Spangler’s role in revoking the medical authorization and showing that Madrigal knew about Oxley’s grievance, that the grievance was connected to the later cell-check incident, and that the conduct chilled the exercise of Oxley’s rights.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The conclusion states that the motion was granted as to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the Eighth Amendment claim, and the retaliation claim against Santiago, and that those claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. The conclusion then separately states that the motion was granted as to the Eighth Amendment claim with leave to amend and authorizes a second amended complaint asserting a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Madrigal and Santiago. These instructions conflict as to whether the Eighth Amendment claim was dismissed with prejudice or could be amended; the order does not resolve that inconsistency.

The order denied dismissal of the retaliation claim against Rossberg. It gave Oxley 28 days from the filing of the order to file a second amended complaint. The order states that any claims or defendants omitted from that complaint would no longer be part of the case and that failure to file on time would result in dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims discussed in the order, without further notice. The matter would then proceed on the retaliation claim against Rossberg.