Thompson v. Allison

Background

Sekou Kwane Thompson, a prisoner housed at the Correctional Training Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed his second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials.

Thompson named Correctional Training Facility officers Martin Magana, Oliva Castro, Don Zypel Igacio, and A. Pelayo, and sergeants Oscar Covarrubias, Jo-ann Crews, and Michael Hicks. He alleged that, on October 4, 2021, the defendants participated in requesting, accepting, reviewing, or approving the placement of inmate Bankhead in Thompson’s cell. Thompson alleged that Bankhead was a known violent Level II prisoner, that the placement violated prison policies and procedures, and that the risk to Thompson’s safety was obvious. He further alleged that Bankhead violently attacked and battered him on October 28, 2021.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a prisoner seeking relief from governmental officials must state a claim showing both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state authority. The court also stated that an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim requires allegations that the danger was objectively serious and that the officials actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court noted that the obviousness of a risk may help show actual awareness, but constructive knowledge alone is not enough.

Ruling and next steps

The court held that, when liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to inmate safety against all seven named defendants. It ordered that the defendants be served through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program, with United States Marshals Service procedures to follow for any defendant who does not waive service.

The court ordered defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion within 91 days after the order was filed, unless they informed the court that summary judgment could not resolve the case. It set deadlines for Thompson’s opposition and defendants’ reply and stated that no hearing would be held on the motion. The order also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provided filing, service, address-change, and extension-of-time instructions.

This was a screening and service order. It allowed the claim to proceed to service, but it did not decide whether the allegations were true or whether Thompson will prevail.