McFadden v. Keyser

Background

Robert McFadden, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, failure to protect, violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and sought a declaration that defendants violated his rights.

McFadden alleged that, between October 2019 and June 2020, defendants failed to provide a diet accommodating his allergies, causing stomach aches and other symptoms. He also alleged that on February 10, 2020, correctional officials assaulted him, failed to intervene, or helped cover up the assault with fabricated reports. He claimed injuries, inadequate medical care, and procedural defects at a prison disciplinary hearing. Although the hearing’s 180-day segregated-housing sentence was later overturned, he alleged that the initial decision caused a loss of privileges and a reduction in his Progressive Inmate Movement System status. He also alleged that defendants failed to accommodate his religious dietary restrictions.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a plausible claim.

Court’s analysis and rulings

First cause of action: Eighth Amendment medical deliberate-indifference claim

The court dismissed this claim without prejudice. It held that McFadden’s allegation that allergen-containing food caused stomach pains did not sufficiently allege a serious enough medical condition for an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.

Second cause of action: Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim

Defendants did not move to dismiss this claim. The claim therefore survived the motion.

Third cause of action: Eighth Amendment medical deliberate-indifference claims

The court dismissed this cause of action without prejudice. The claims against William Keyser and Garry Sipple were duplicative of the failure-to-protect claims because they relied on the same facts and sought the same relief. The claim against Kathleen Buttles also failed because McFadden described his medical conditions and pain without alleging enough facts to show a sufficiently serious condition. The court stated that McFadden could replead with distinct facts and requested relief for the duplicative claims.

Fourth cause of action: First Amendment retaliation claim

The court denied the motion as to this claim, allowing it to proceed. The opinion states that defendants did not move to dismiss the relevant claim, although the discussion refers to it as the second cause of action.

Fifth cause of action: failure to protect

The court denied the motion as to this claim. Although some allegations improperly grouped the defendants together, McFadden specifically alleged that certain officials assaulted him and that others witnessed the assault without intervening. The court held that these allegations sufficiently pleaded a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth Amendment.

Sixth cause of action: Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim

The court denied the motion as to this claim. Defendants did not dispute that McFadden’s initial disciplinary hearing lacked certain procedures, including the opportunity to call witnesses, attend the hearing, and receive a written summary. They argued that he suffered no protected deprivation because he never served the segregated-housing sentence. The court held that his alleged loss of privileges and reduction in Progressive Inmate Movement System status adequately alleged a deprivation of a protected liberty interest.

Seventh cause of action: false-report claim

The court denied the motion as to this claim. Although a prisoner generally has no constitutional right to be free from false disciplinary accusations alone, McFadden alleged that defendants fabricated reports in retaliation for his filing a prior lawsuit. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage.

Eighth cause of action: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim

The court dismissed this claim without prejudice because McFadden stated in his opposition that he was no longer seeking relief under that statute.

Ninth cause of action: First Amendment religious-exercise claim

The court dismissed this claim without prejudice. McFadden alleged generally that “Defendants” refused to accommodate his dietary restrictions, but he did not identify what each defendant did. The court held that this group pleading did not give the defendants fair notice of the claims against them.

Tenth cause of action: request for declaratory relief

The court denied McFadden’s request for declaratory relief. It concluded that granting such relief would be premature because the case involved fact-intensive and multiple claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, it granted the motion as to the first, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action, and denied it as to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action.

The court granted McFadden permission to file an amended complaint by May 5, 2025. The order states that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. It further states that claims dismissed without prejudice would be treated as dismissed with prejudice if McFadden did not timely file an amended complaint. The court also set response and case-management deadlines depending on whether an amended complaint was filed.