Mason v. Doe
- William Orrick
- 3:24-cv-04770
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Richard Lee Mason v. John Doe, Judge Orrick dismissed Mason’s amended civil-rights action with prejudice after screening and denied his motions for counsel.
Richard Lee Mason’s federal civil-rights case was dismissed with prejudice, and his motions for counsel were denied. The order entered judgment in favor of the defendants and closed the case.
What happened
In Richard Lee Mason v. John Doe, Richard Lee Mason claimed that his constitutional rights were violated after he slipped on urine while cleaning a prison yard and waited several minutes for medical care.
Mason also alleged that unnamed correctional officers repeatedly left urine-filled bottles in the yard and did not respond to his reports. The court found that he could not plausibly connect the unknown person who created the hazard to supervisory employees, and that the short delay in receiving medical treatment did not state a constitutional claim.
Judge William Orrick dismissed the action with prejudice after screening the amended complaint and denied Mason’s motions for counsel. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
The detailed version
- Mason v. Doe · No. 3:24-cv-04770
- William Orrick
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
Richard Lee Mason brought an amended action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. He alleged that he slipped and fell on May 21, 2024, while cleaning a puddle of urine in the yard at San Quentin State Prison. He said he remained on the ground for several minutes before a correctional officer took him by wheelchair for medical treatment.
Mason also alleged that unnamed correctional officers had repeatedly left bottles filled with urine in the yard during 2023, that the bottles often spilled, and that his reports to unnamed officers produced no action. The court had previously dismissed his initial complaint for failure to state a claim and reviewed the amended complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that screening requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and conduct by a person acting under color of state law.
The court concluded that Mason’s allegations did not state an Eighth Amendment claim. Mason did not know who left the urine bottles, and the court found that any attempt to hold supervisory employees liable based on that unknown person’s conduct would be speculative. The court also held that the short period between Mason’s fall and his being taken for medical care, although unfortunate, was not enough to establish deliberate indifference. It cited decisions stating that temporary or short deprivations generally do not establish an Eighth Amendment violation.
Ruling
The court DISMISSED the federal civil-rights action WITH PREJUDICE because the allegations failed to state a claim for relief. The court also DENIED Mason’s motions for counsel. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.