Walker v. Popow
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-02944
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Walker v. Popow, Judge Chen dismissed Walker’s amended civil-rights complaint because it still failed to state a claim.
Keewin L. Walker’s amended civil-rights claims against M. Popow and the other named defendants were dismissed; the action was closed.
What happened
In Walker v. Popow, Keewin L. Walker, a prisoner, alleged that correctional officer M. Popow delayed his pre-dinner showers after he worked with contaminants and announced the delay to other prisoners. Walker also alleged that Sergeant Spencer moved him to another housing unit.
The court reviewed Walker’s amended complaint and found that it did not fix the problems identified in the original complaint. Walker did not provide facts showing a serious health or safety condition, deliberate indifference, retaliation without a legitimate correctional reason, an adverse action, or a chilling effect.
Judge Edward Chen dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and denied further permission to amend because the court found amendment would be futile. The clerk was ordered to close the file.
The detailed version
- Walker v. Popow · No. 3:19-cv-02944
- Edward Chen
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
Keewin L. Walker, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint but allowed Walker to amend it. The amended complaint was reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
Walker alleged that correctional officer M. Popow intentionally delayed and disrupted his ability to take a pre-dinner shower after working with contaminants. He also alleged that Popow announced to the housing tier that inmate programming would be delayed because Walker needed to shower. Walker further alleged that Sergeant Spencer moved him to another housing unit.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the amended complaint repeated the original allegations and did not correct the deficiencies previously identified.
For the Eighth Amendment claim, the court found that Walker did not allege enough facts to show an objectively serious condition. In particular, he did not state how many times he was denied a shower or what contaminants were on him. The court also found that he did not allege facts showing that Popow knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Walker’s health or safety.
The court also rejected the theory that Popow’s announcement about the delayed programming stated an Eighth Amendment claim. Walker did not allege facts suggesting that the announcement would cause other prisoners to attack him, and he did not allege that any prisoner attacked or harmed him because of it.
The court found that the retaliation claim also remained insufficient. Walker did not allege facts plausibly showing that the housing-unit move lacked a legitimate correctional purpose, that he suffered an adverse action, or that the conduct had a chilling effect.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It granted no further leave to amend because it found that amendment would be futile, and it ordered the clerk to close the file. Judge Edward Chen signed the order on February 10, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.