McCright v. Andes

Background

Colvin McCright, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After an earlier amended complaint was dismissed with an opportunity to amend, McCright filed a second amended complaint. The court reviewed that complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities, officers, or employees.

McCright alleged that a prior cellmate assault broke his jaw and that he had other fights with cellmates. He alleged that sharing a cell caused fear, post-traumatic stress disorder, and an inability to sleep. He further alleged that L. Peters, E. Weaver, and C. Roberts required him to accept a cellmate and issued him a Rules Violation Report when he did not comply. He alleged that Avila, Moody, Amador, Hammond, and Eberly denied his request for a single-cell disability accommodation. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and referred to a class-action case involving California prisoners with disabilities.

Claims the Court Found Cognizable

The court found that, when read liberally, McCright’s allegations stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Peters, Weaver, and Roberts. A failure-to-protect claim requires allegations that the prisoner faced an objectively serious danger and that the official deliberately disregarded the danger. The court concluded that McCright sufficiently alleged that these defendants denied him a single cell despite the danger he claimed was shown by his prior attacks.

The court also found that McCright stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against the same three defendants. Such a claim concerns a serious medical need and requires allegations that prison staff knew about the need, chose a medically unacceptable response, and consciously disregarded an excessive health risk. The court found McCright’s allegations about post-traumatic stress disorder, complete inability to sleep, and the defendants’ alleged knowledge of those problems sufficient at the screening stage.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim without leave to amend. It explained that the Act prohibits discrimination because of a disability, rather than inadequate treatment for a disability. McCright alleged that he needed a single cell because of his conditions and that double-cell housing worsened those conditions, but he did not allege that he was denied access to a program or service because of his disabilities. The court concluded that he had already been given an opportunity to correct this deficiency and had not done so.

Other Claims and Defendants

The order dismissed Avila, Moody, Amador, Hammond, and Eberly from the action. It also noted that an earlier due-process claim concerning the disciplinary hearing for refusing a cellmate, and the defendants connected to that claim, remained dismissed for the reasons given in the prior order.

Order and Next Steps

The court ordered service on Peters, Weaver, and Roberts through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program. It directed the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion addressing the cognizable claims by November 24, 2025. If they raise failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the order requires them to do so through a summary-judgment motion. McCright’s opposition will be due 45 days after the motion is filed, and the defendants’ reply will be due 15 days after the opposition.

The court also permitted discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, stated that no hearing would be held unless later ordered, and gave McCright instructions about serving court communications, requesting records from prison officials, maintaining his address, and seeking extensions before deadlines expire. Judge Rita F. Lin did not decide the ultimate merits of the two remaining claims.