Shaw v. Woods

Background

William Shaw, who is incarcerated in state prison and represented himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on September 27, 2023, A. Cortina watched another inmate punch him, display a knife, and later stab him for five or six minutes without intervening. Shaw also alleged that A. Avilla and J. Guevarra sprayed him with pepper spray during the incident and falsely said they had witnessed Shaw and the other inmate fighting. Shaw requested $110 million and that the officers be fired.

Screening and filing fee

The court screened the prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court granted Shaw permission to proceed without paying the full filing fee immediately. He remains responsible for the $350 filing fee, which will be collected through payments from his prison trust account.

Claim against Cortina

The court treated Shaw’s allegations against Cortina as an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. Such a claim requires facts showing that a prison official knew about a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. The court found that Shaw alleged enough facts because Cortina allegedly personally witnessed the other inmate punch and stab Shaw, had an opportunity to intervene, and failed to take reasonable steps for several minutes. Shaw may proceed on this claim against Cortina.

Claims against Avilla and Guevarra

The court treated the allegations against Avilla and Guevarra as an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim based on their use of pepper spray. The court found that Shaw did not allege facts supporting an inference that they acted maliciously or sadistically to cause harm. Even accepting Shaw’s account, the other inmate was allegedly on top of him with a knife, creating a safety risk that could support some use of force. Shaw also did not allege injuries supporting an excessive-force inference. The court therefore found that the complaint did not state a claim for relief against Avilla or Guevarra, while allowing Shaw an opportunity to amend and allege facts showing that the pepper spray was used to cause harm rather than to maintain or restore discipline.

Venue and available choices

The court did not transfer the case because the complaint did not make clear where the defendants lived or where the events occurred, and Shaw could plausibly allege facts supporting venue in the current division. An amended complaint must identify where the alleged violations occurred and explain each defendant’s involvement.

The order gave Shaw two choices: proceed immediately against Cortina on the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, which would mean voluntarily dismissing Avilla and Guevarra, or file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies. Shaw had 30 days to return a notice of election. If he did not return it, the court would assume he chose to proceed on the complaint as screened and would recommend dismissal without prejudice of the claims against Avilla and Guevarra.

Disposition

The court granted the request to proceed without paying the full filing fee immediately. It found a valid Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Cortina, found that the claims against Avilla and Guevarra did not state claims for which relief could be granted, and gave Shaw the option to proceed against Cortina or amend his complaint. The order did not itself dismiss the claims against Avilla and Guevarra. Judge Sean C. Riordan also declined to transfer the case at that time.