Davis v. Bolanos

Background

Jerome Markiel Davis, an incarcerated person representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Carlos Bolanos and other defendants. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring early screening of prisoner lawsuits against government entities or officials.

Davis alleged that officials at the Maguire Correctional Facility served him food that had been tampered with and failed to properly process his grievances and mail concerning the alleged tampering. He also alleged inadequate medical assistance, conspiracy, retaliation, unequal treatment, interference with religious practice, defamation, and liability by supervisory officials. Davis based his belief that food had been tampered with largely on symptoms he experienced after eating; he acknowledged that he never saw anyone tampering with his food.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint did not state a plausible claim for relief. For the alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the court explained that Davis needed facts showing both a substantial risk of serious harm and that an official knowingly disregarded that risk. The court found the food-tampering allegations implausible because Davis did not see tampering, the allegedly affected milk cartons were sealed, no medical provider had confirmed food contamination, and his symptoms could have other explanations. The court also found no sufficient facts showing that any defendant had the required deliberate indifference, meaning knowing disregard of an excessive risk to his health or safety.

The court found the medical-care allegations insufficient because Davis did not adequately describe a serious medical need. The court also found that his conspiracy allegations were unsupported conclusions, and that his retaliation allegations did not plausibly connect particular adverse actions to protected activity. His equal-protection allegations lacked facts showing discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect.

The court rejected Davis’s generalized due-process theories because specific constitutional protections governed the alleged food, medical-care, speech, mail, and religious-practice injuries. It also found no facts showing a protected liberty interest or identifying required procedural protections. The court stated that California prisoners have no federal constitutional right to a prison grievance system and dismissed the due-process claims based on mishandling or denial of inmate appeals and letter requests without leave to amend.

The court found Davis’s mail-interference allegations contradictory or speculative. It also found that the religious-freedom allegations did not plausibly show tampered food and did not plausibly show that the food was inconsistent with his kosher diet. The defamation theory failed because the complaint did not satisfy the required showing of reputational harm plus a related protected right or tangible legal burden. Finally, the claims against Bolanos and Undersheriff Robbins based on inadequate training or supervision did not plausibly show that they knew, or reasonably should have known, about food tampering that additional cameras or supervision would have prevented.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Davis was permitted to file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies and was instructed to name each defendant and explain what that person did or failed to do. The amended complaint was due by October 28, 2019, and the court warned that failure to file it would result in dismissal of the action. Claims concerning mishandling or denial of inmate appeals and letter requests were dismissed without leave to amend.