Walker v. Popow

Background

Keewin L. Walker, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirement, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That review requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Walker alleged that correctional officer Popal delayed his shower, which he said he needed because he worked with chemicals, biological material, and blood spills. He alleged that Popal denied him a shower and evening meal on October 4, 2018, although he was allowed to shower later that night. Walker also alleged that Popal announced to his housing unit that programming was delayed because Walker had to shower, which Walker believed was intended to cause other prisoners to harm him. Finally, Walker alleged that Sergeant Spencer moved him to another housing unit in retaliation for his efforts to hold Spencer and Popal accountable.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious risk of harm and deliberate indifference—meaning that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.

The court held that Walker’s shower allegations did not plausibly state an Eighth Amendment claim. He did not allege how many times he was denied a shower or what contaminants were actually on him when a shower was denied. Without those facts, the court could not determine whether the problem was sporadic or persistent, or whether there was actual rather than potential contamination. The complaint also did not allege facts showing that Popal knew of and disregarded an excessive health or safety risk.

The court also held that the announcement about the delayed programming did not plausibly show deliberate indifference to Walker’s safety. Walker did not allege that any prisoner attacked or harmed him because of the announcement, and the complaint did not provide facts showing that the announcement would cause other prisoners to attack him. The court granted leave to amend this claim if Walker had additional supporting facts.

For the retaliation claim, the court explained that a prison-retaliation claim requires an adverse action taken because of protected conduct, a chilling effect on the prisoner’s exercise of constitutional rights, and the absence of a legitimate correctional purpose. The court found that the complaint did not state a claim against Spencer because the alleged move could reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal if showering could be accommodated more easily in the new housing unit. Walker also did not allege that the new housing unit was worse or that the move chilled his exercise of his rights. The court granted leave to amend this claim as well.

The court noted that Walker spelled the correctional officer’s name three ways—Popow, Popal, and Popall—and encouraged him to use the correct name so that service of process would not fail because the defendant was inadequately identified.

Disposition

The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim and dismissed it with leave to amend. Walker was required to file a complete amended complaint by October 31, 2019, using the caption and civil case number in the order and placing the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The court stated that failure to file by the deadline would result in dismissal.