Craig v. CDCR

Background

Kent Craig, an incarcerated person at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this pro se civil action. He alleged that he received a lower-bunk authorization on January 23, 2018, but that unnamed staff ordered him to move to another cell on April 26, 2019, where no lower bunk was available. He also alleged that he had experienced back problems for many years and that his inmate appeals were unsuccessful.

Craig filed a petition for a writ of mandate and cited the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state law. The petition also referred to the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deliberate indifference to medical needs. It named the warden, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and “et al.” as respondents.

Screening and mandate claim

Because Craig sought relief from government actors, the court screened the pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court applied the rule that a complaint must provide enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels, conclusions, or a formulaic statement of legal elements.

The court held that a federal writ of mandate cannot compel a state official or state agency to act because the federal mandamus statute applies only to federal officers, employees, and agencies. The court therefore denied Craig’s petition for a writ of mandate. It said, however, that his issues might be presented in a civil-rights action against appropriate defendants.

Disability claims

The court explained that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability discrimination in the services, programs, or activities of a public entity. It said Craig could try to pursue those claims in an amended complaint, but he needed to identify his disability and the accommodation that he needed but did not receive. He also needed to clarify whether he claimed that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation refused to recognize a covered disability or recognized the disability but refused to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court identified the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as the public entity operating the prison, as a proper defendant for an Americans with Disabilities Act or Rehabilitation Act claim. It stated that individual prison workers were not proper defendants for those claims.

Section 1983 and constitutional claims

The court found that Craig’s references to due process, equal protection, and deliberate indifference to medical needs were not supported by sufficient facts. It granted leave to amend so he could provide a complete factual statement and explain how each defendant caused each alleged violation.

For a potential Eighth Amendment medical-care claim, the court explained that Craig would need to allege both a serious medical need and deliberate indifference by specific defendants. For a potential due-process claim, the court noted that there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance system in California, although an official could potentially be liable for an ongoing constitutional violation that the official was able to prevent or stop. For a potential equal-protection claim, Craig would need to allege intentional discrimination based on membership in a protected class.

The court also explained that Craig could not hold the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation liable under Section 1983 merely because it employed people who allegedly violated his rights. The pleading needed to identify each individual defendant and explain what that person did or failed to do. If Craig sued a supervisor, he needed to allege personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged constitutional violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and granted leave to amend. The amended complaint was due by February 17, 2020, and had to include the required caption, civil case number, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that failure to file by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action.