Evans v. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Dublin

Background

Jill M. Evans, a prisoner in a Colorado state prison and proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights action against T. Justino, identified as the former acting warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California. Evans alleges that she was told on April 21, 2022, that she would be released immediately because of credits earned under the First Step Act. She alleges that Justino did not release her until February 15, 2023—310 days later—and that the delay postponed her transfer to Colorado to serve her state sentence and delayed completion of that sentence.

Evans seeks monetary damages. She also alleges weight loss, headaches, digestive issues, hair loss, stress, anxiety, depression, respiratory and sinus harm from asbestos and black mold, and an injury during a medical examination. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend because Evans had not alleged a physical injury connected to the alleged overdetention. The amended complaint added allegations of physical injuries.

Screening of the Amended Complaint

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of prisoner complaints against governmental entities or officers. The court explained that claims by people without attorneys must be read liberally and that a complaint must include enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely offering labels or conclusions.

The court stated that holding a prisoner beyond the prisoner’s release date may violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. It found that, to the extent Evans’s alleged physical injuries occurred during or resulted from the 310-day overdetention, they satisfied the physical-injury requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Read liberally, Evans’s allegation that Justino detained her for 310 days beyond the release date calculated by prison officials stated a claim capable of judicial determination and review.

The court did not find that Evans’s other allegations stated additional plausible claims as presented. The allegations of inadequate medical, dental, and mental-health care were unexplained and too vague and conclusory. The allegation that unnamed staff members hired by Justino sexually harassed Evans by watching her shower did not state a plausible claim against Justino because a government official generally cannot be held responsible for unconstitutional conduct by subordinates solely based on that supervisory relationship.

Service of Process and Order

Although the court found that the overdetention claim was capable of judicial review, Evans had not provided Justino’s current location. Without that information, the United States Marshals Service could not serve Justino with the summons and complaint. The court directed Evans, by August 25, 2025, to provide Justino’s current location or explain why she could not provide it.

The order did not dismiss the case at that time. It warned that failure to provide the information or an explanation by the deadline may result in dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court also warned that failure to comply with its orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).