Penny v. Ahern

Background

Louis Levern Penny, an inmate at the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Penny also asked the court to appoint a lawyer.

Penny alleged that on May 4, 2018, an inmate in an adjoining cell showed him rodent droppings placed between the bread on a food tray. He alleged that Gregory J. Ahern was in charge of the jail; Lieutenants Clippinger and McComas and Deputy Procopio participated in denying his inmate appeal; Officer Hayes witnessed unsanitary food trays; Officer Garcia photographed the tray; and Officer Nelson personally handled the tray after saying that a sergeant was not coming out.

Screening ruling

The court explained that a complaint must allege enough facts to make a legal claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions. It concluded that Penny’s complaint did not allege enough facts to state a plausible violation of a constitutional or federal right.

The court discussed a due-process claim based on unsafe conditions of confinement. For a pretrial detainee to proceed on a deliberate-indifference claim involving health or safety, the allegations must show, among other things, that the conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm and that the defendant failed to take objectively reasonable measures to address that risk. The court held that Penny’s allegation of a single instance of rodent droppings on a food tray did not show a sufficiently serious condition. It contrasted that allegation with a chronic rodent infestation, which could be sufficiently serious. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so Penny could allege additional facts, if he had them, showing that the problem was more than an infrequent discovery of rodent droppings. The court also noted that, without physical injury, the relief available to Penny might be limited under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).

Inmate appeal claim

The court held that mishandling or denying an inmate appeal does not itself violate the federal Constitution because California inmates have no federal constitutional right to a prison grievance or administrative-appeal system. It dismissed the claim based on the defendants’ handling of Penny’s inmate appeal without leave to amend.

The court instructed Penny that an amended complaint must identify what each individual defendant did or failed to do and must not refer to the defendants only as a group. It explained that liability under § 1983 generally requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation or a sufficient causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and that violation.

Request for appointed counsel

The court denied Penny’s motion for appointment of counsel. It found no exceptional circumstances because Penny had adequately described the facts supporting his claim and there did not appear to be a likelihood of success on the merits.

Disposition and deadline

Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed by May 1, 2020, include the required caption and civil case number, state all claims completely, and identify itself as an amended complaint on the first page. The order states that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of all defendants and claims except the excessive-force claim against Deputy Pereira. The order does not explain elsewhere in the provided text how that claim arose or why it remained an exception. Penny’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied.