Silverman v. Napa State Hospital

Background

Jacob S. Silverman, a California inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Napa State Hospital. He alleged that, from August 7, 2018, through August 28, 2018, the bathrooms and showers were unsanitary because they were not adequately or regularly cleaned.

The court had previously dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend because Silverman needed to name a proper defendant. His amended complaint alleged the same conditions and named Napa State Hospital, the Napa County Board of Supervisors through unidentified individuals, unidentified operations chairpersons, and unidentified supervisors responsible for bathroom and shower sanitation in Unit Q-9.

Screening and analysis

Because a prisoner sought relief from a governmental entity or its officer or employee, the court screened the pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also was required to read a self-represented litigant’s pleading liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal-law right and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law.

The court applied the Eighth Amendment standards governing prison conditions. It had already determined that Silverman’s allegation of unsanitary conditions lasting three weeks was sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective part of an Eighth Amendment claim. But Silverman again failed to satisfy the requirement of identifying a person acting under state law who committed the violation.

The court concluded that Napa State Hospital was not an individual or a “person” for purposes of the second § 1983 requirement. It also found that Silverman did not connect the unidentified county board members or other Doe defendants to the alleged deprivation. The court identified the Unit Q-9 supervisor as a possible defendant only if such a person existed and had responsibility for maintaining the bathrooms and showers. The court explained that an individual may be liable under § 1983 only if that person proximately caused the deprivation, such as by affirmatively acting or participating in it.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint was DISMISSED with leave to amend. Silverman was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file a second amended complaint identifying at least one proper defendant by name and alleging facts establishing that defendant’s liability.

The second amended complaint would supersede the original and amended complaints. Claims and defendants not included in the second amended complaint would no longer be part of the case. The court stated that failure to respond as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk was directed to send Silverman two copies of the court’s complaint form with the order.