Jones v. Borla

Background

Amos Jones, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Edward J. Borla, identified as the Acting Warden of the California Training Facility when the events occurred. Jones alleged that, during a 13.5-hour power shutdown on October 17, 2023, Borla failed to provide portable toilets for prisoners even though the toilets in their cells could not flush. Jones alleged that he takes medication requiring frequent restroom use, that the smell of human waste made eating difficult, and that he vomited several times. He asserted an Eighth Amendment claim and a state-law negligence claim.

The court stated that it had screened the prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Jones’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted in a separate order.

Eighth Amendment Claim

The court held that the allegations did not support a plausible Eighth Amendment violation. An Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires allegations showing that a prison official knew prisoners faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk.

The court emphasized the circumstances, nature, and duration of the alleged deprivation. It concluded that smelling feces and urine for 13.5 hours, during one temporary period of confinement in a cell with a toilet that would not flush, did not plausibly expose Jones to a substantial risk of serious harm. The court distinguished cases involving more severe or prolonged conditions, including cells covered in feces, extended periods without functioning sanitation, or additional conditions such as insects, open sewage, or lack of food or water.

The court also denied leave to amend because the complaint clearly described the nature, severity, and duration of the conditions, and those conditions could not be turned into a plausible Eighth Amendment claim by adding other facts. The Eighth Amendment claim was dismissed under Section 1983.

State-Law Negligence Claim

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. The negligence claim was dismissed without prejudice to filing it in state court.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The dismissal was with prejudice as to the Eighth Amendment claim and without prejudice as to the negligence claim, which may be filed in state court. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.