Jordan v. Arce

Background

Antoine Jordan, an inmate at California State Prison for Los Angeles County, filed this pro se civil-rights action about events at Salinas Valley State Prison. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim had dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend. After Jordan filed an amended complaint, the case was reassigned to District Judge P. Casey Pitt because a dispositive decision was required.

Jordan alleged that, on March 10, 2023, librarian Tomlinson gave sensitive legal documents to an inmate library clerk to photocopy, despite Jordan’s instructions not to let the clerk see, touch, read, or copy them. Jordan alleged that the clerk made an extra copy and showed it to inmates throughout the facility. Jordan said other inmates ordered him to request protective custody, but that he was attacked before he could do so.

Jordan also alleged that, on March 12, 2023, correctional officer Estrada electronically opened a housing-unit door for inmate Lucien, who was housed in another unit. Jordan alleged that Lucien entered the unit to assault him. Jordan provided no details about the attack. He alleged that officers Raymundo and Gonzalez-Gamez sprayed him with pepper spray during it.

Screening standard

Because Jordan sought relief as a prisoner from governmental officers, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still had to provide enough factual matter to make liability plausible.

Failure-to-protect claims

The court explained that prison officials must take reasonable measures to protect inmates from serious risks. To state a failure-to-protect claim, a plaintiff must allege both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s safety.

The court concluded that Jordan had not alleged enough facts showing that Tomlinson had the required state of mind. He did not allege that Tomlinson intentionally gave the documents to the inmate clerk rather than doing so accidentally, or that Tomlinson knew the clerk would make and share an extra copy. Jordan also did not explain why Estrada, Gonzalez-Gamez, and Raymundo knew that allowing Lucien into the housing unit created an excessive risk to Jordan. The court noted that Jordan had not yet requested protective custody and had not explained why Lucien’s presence in the unit would have alerted the officers that Lucien intended to attack Jordan.

Excessive-force claim

For an excessive-force claim, the court considered whether the force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Jordan alleged that Raymundo and Gonzalez-Gamez used excessive force by pepper-spraying him. But he did not explain why the spray was not used in a good-faith effort to break up the fight. The court therefore concluded that he had not stated a cognizable excessive-force claim and instructed him to explain why the officers’ response was excessive.

Carlos Arce

The amended complaint named Carlos Arce, identified as SVSP’s former warden, but included no allegations against him. The court reiterated that Jordan could not sue Arce merely because Arce was a supervisor when Jordan was injured. Because Jordan alleged no facts showing Arce’s personal involvement, the court dismissed Arce from the action without leave to amend.

Disposition and next filing

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend as to Tomlinson, Estrada, Raymundo, and Gonzalez-Gamez only. The court stated that Jordan may be able to state failure-to-protect claims against Tomlinson, Estrada, Raymundo, and Gonzalez-Gamez, and an excessive-force claim against Raymundo and Gonzalez-Gamez. Jordan was ordered to file a second amended complaint within 35 days of the order. The new complaint had to use the case caption and number and include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court also warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).