Freeman v. Foss

Background

Travon Leon Freeman, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The case concerned events at Salinas Valley State Prison, where Freeman had previously been housed. The court reviewed his amended complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Freeman had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee at that point.

Freeman alleged that on November 29, 2018, correctional officials, including Sergeant Bangar, appeared to know that he was about to be attacked but did not protect him. Multiple inmates attacked him, causing a cut on his nose and swelling near his upper right eye. Freeman alleged that the attack continued for almost a minute even though officials could have stopped it. He also alleged that Officer Saglado later said he had seen the attack. Freeman claimed that Warden Tammy Foss was responsible for failing to supervise, train, and discipline officers. He characterized the conduct as failure to protect, deliberate indifference to inmate safety, and cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a prisoner complaint must contain enough factual material to state a plausible claim and must identify a constitutional or federal-rights violation by a person acting under state authority. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, general labels and conclusions are not enough.

The court found that Freeman’s amended complaint was too conclusory to state cognizable § 1983 claims. In particular, the allegations that the yard was quiet and that correctional officials were looking at Freeman did not show, beyond speculation, that each defendant knew he would be attacked that day and failed to prevent it. The court therefore required factual allegations linking each defendant to the alleged constitutional violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. It ordered Freeman to file a second amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The new complaint had to use the specified caption and case number, state all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and specifically identify what each defendant did or failed to do for each separate claim. The court warned that broad conclusory allegations would not be sufficient and directed the clerk to send Freeman two copies of the complaint form. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.