Magana-Torres v. Borla

Background

Jose Humberto Magana-Torres, a self-represented state prisoner incarcerated at Correctional Training Facility, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Warden J. Borla; Lieutenant P. McDonald; Sergeant D. Lockhart; Correctional Officers S. Sanchez, T. Sullivan, Larr, Magna, and Dorr; and “John Does 1 Through 30.” He sought injunctive relief and monetary and punitive damages. The complaint was filed under seal, and the court avoided discussing confidential information, including the identities of confidential informants and inmates involved in investigations.

The court conducted the required initial screening of the prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It explained that a § 1983 claim requires a violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law and that each defendant must have personally caused, participated in, directed, or failed to prevent the alleged violation. Supervisors cannot be held liable solely because they supervise other employees.

Claims and Screening Rulings

The complaint alleged Eighth Amendment violations arising from defendants’ actions during a December 15, 2022 cell search. The court stated that the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to protect inmates from violence and that a failure-to-protect claim requires both a sufficiently serious risk and deliberate indifference to the inmate’s safety.

The court found that, liberally construed, the complaint stated a cognizable § 1983 claim against D. Lockhart, S. Sanchez, T. Sullivan, Magna, and Dorr for deliberate indifference to Magana-Torres’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court ordered service on those defendants.

The court DISMISSED with leave to amend:

- Magana-Torres’s claim for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities; - the claims against J. Borla, P. McDonald, and Larr because the complaint did not allege how they personally and proximately caused a constitutional violation; - the claims against Schoch, whose status as a defendant was unclear because Schoch was not named in the caption or the list of defendants; - the claims against the Doe defendants, subject to the court’s instruction that Magana-Torres identify them and allege specific facts linking each person to a federal-rights violation; and - the claims alleging violations of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments arising from the December 15, 2022 search, because the complaint did not provide specific facts supporting those claims.

The court explained that if the Doe defendants are not identified, their claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Magana-Torres filing new actions against them once their names are known.

Next Steps and Disposition

Magana-Torres may file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint must use the case caption and number, state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, use the court’s complaint form, include all claims he wishes to pursue, and not incorporate the prior complaint by reference. If he does not timely file a proper amended complaint, the order specifies that the official-capacity claim, claims against Borla, McDonald, Larr, and Schoch, Doe-defendant claims, and Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims will be dismissed as described in the order, while the original sealed complaint will remain operative and the case will proceed in accordance with the order.

The order also established procedures for service, discovery, and later dispositive motions, including possible summary-judgment motions and motions based on failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order as Chief Magistrate Judge.