Farha v. Foss

Background

Mauwai Farha, a state prisoner incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that constitutional violations occurred during earlier incarceration at Salinas Valley State Prison and High Desert State Prison. The complaint did not clearly state when the alleged events occurred or which defendants were connected to which prison.

Farha named Acting Warden Tammatha Foss, Plumber M. Johnson, Supervisor of Building Trades J. Frailey, Associate Warden H. Wagner, ADA Coordinator R. St. Andre, and “John Does.” He sought monetary damages. He alleged that his cell was repeatedly flooded with human waste and other unsanitary and hazardous materials, and that cleaning it without gloves was unhealthy. He also alleged that inmate appeals resulted in threats and hostility. The complaint included an unclear claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Screening and Legal Analysis

Because Farha sought relief from governmental officials, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is an early review to determine whether a prisoner’s complaint states a legally valid claim. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by someone acting under state authority.

The court determined that claims concerning events at High Desert State Prison belonged in the Eastern District of California because that prison is located there. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to Farha refiling them in a new civil-rights action in that district.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim with leave to amend because the named defendants did not appear to be proper defendants for that claim and the complaint did not present a coherent legal theory. The court also dismissed the claims against Foss with leave to amend because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing by her and instead indicated that she directed the maintenance department to make emergency repairs.

The court found that the complaint did not clearly show whether the other defendants were connected to High Desert State Prison or Salinas Valley State Prison. Claims involving events at the two prisons were not properly joined in one action. The court therefore dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so Farha could identify which defendants belonged to which claims. The court cautioned that naming a supervisor alone is not enough under § 1983; the complaint must allege the supervisor’s personal participation, direction, knowledge, or failure to prevent the alleged violations, as applicable.

Disposition

The court ordered that all claims relating to problems during Farha’s incarceration at High Desert State Prison were dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in a new civil-rights action in the Eastern District of California. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend within twenty-eight days. The amended complaint had to include all claims and allegations Farha wished to pursue, identify each defendant, specify the prison involved, and provide facts about the dates, places, conduct, and constitutional rights at issue. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action.

Farha’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances. The court stated that this denial was without prejudice to a possible appointment of counsel at a later date if circumstances warranted it. The clerk was directed to send Farha a blank civil-rights complaint form.