Cadena v. Preston
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:19-cv-02856
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Cadena v. Preston, Judge Seeborg dismissed Cadena’s civil-rights suit because the amended complaint did not adequately allege constitutional harm.
Victor Cadena’s § 1983 civil-rights case was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of J. Preston.
What happened
In Cadena v. Preston, Victor Cadena alleged that prison guard J. Preston failed to respond appropriately after he reported having suicidal thoughts and made insulting comments.
The court reopened the case and vacated its earlier dismissal because Cadena had filed an amended complaint. It then dismissed the suit, finding that the amended complaint did not show resulting harm, that Preston knew of a serious risk and disregarded it, or that a state-protocol violation violated a federal constitutional right.
Judge Richard Seeborg ordered judgment for Preston and directed the Clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state that this final dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Cadena v. Preston · No. 3:19-cv-02856
- Richard Seeborg
- Oct. 10, 2019
Background
Victor Cadena brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Preston, identified in the opinion as a prison guard at Pelican Bay State Prison. Cadena alleged that, in 2018, Preston refused to place him on suicide watch and made insulting comments. The court had previously dismissed the action with leave to amend because the allegations were conclusory. It also dismissed the allegations about Preston’s comments with prejudice because disrespectful or vulgar language and verbal harassment are not actionable under § 1983.
Cadena later filed an amended complaint. The court therefore vacated the earlier judgment and dismissal order and reopened the action for review of the amended complaint.
Legal standard
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. The court treated Cadena’s amended allegations as an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference. That standard requires facts showing that the official knew the prisoner faced a substantial risk of serious harm, understood that risk, and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The plaintiff must also show resulting harm.
Court’s analysis
Cadena alleged that, in September 2018, he told Preston that he was having suicidal thoughts. He asserted that Preston was required to follow state protocols and alert mental-health professionals for an evaluation, and that her actions prevented him from receiving treatment.
The court found these allegations insufficient. First, Cadena did not show that Preston’s actions caused him harm. Second, he did not provide facts showing that his statement made Preston aware of facts from which she could infer a substantial risk of serious harm, or that she actually drew that inference. Third, an alleged failure to follow state protocols did not by itself establish a violation of a federal constitutional right. The court also noted that Preston did not prevent Cadena from seeking mental-health treatment because he could file a grievance or ask for medical help himself.
Disposition
The court dismissed the federal civil-rights suit, ordered the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Preston, and directed the Clerk to close the file. The opinion does not specify whether this dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.