Ontiveros v. Dominguez

Background

Israel Ontiveros, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action against Dominguez, Wang, Correctional Officer Aguilar, and a “Jane Doe” officer. He alleged that, while housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, he experienced high anxiety, requested medication to prevent self-harm, and was ignored. He then injured his head, was placed under observation and on one-to-one watch, continued requesting medication, and was later restrained. Ontiveros alleged that, while Dominguez attempted to remove his shorts, he was dropped by Dominguez, Aguilar, Wang, and Jane Doe, causing injury and exposing his buttock. He sought damages for inadequate medical care and excessive force.

Screening standard

Because Ontiveros is a prisoner seeking relief from government employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening requires the court to identify claims that are legally sufficient and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used here, requires a constitutional violation by a person acting under state authority.

Medical-care claim

The court treated the allegations as an attempt to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. That claim requires facts showing both a serious medical need and a defendant’s deliberate disregard of it. The court said Ontiveros did not specifically allege that he had a serious mental-health condition requiring the requested medication. Even assuming that he did, the court found that he had not connected the lack of medication to Dominguez, Aguilar, Wang, or Jane Doe. The court granted leave to amend so that Ontiveros could attempt to allege facts showing that these defendants, or another properly named defendant, were responsible for denying treatment.

Excessive-force claim

The court also treated the complaint as attempting to state an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The relevant question is whether prison officials used force in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead used it maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The court found that Ontiveros alleged that the defendants dropped him while Dominguez tried to remove his shorts, and that Dominguez was responding to Ontiveros’s refusal to remove his clothing. But the complaint did not allege that any defendant acted with the intent required for an excessive-force claim. The court granted leave to amend to allow allegations about each defendant’s intent.

Negligence and Jane Doe

The court stated that negligence and gross negligence are not actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. It advised Ontiveros to consider that limitation when preparing an amended complaint. The court also explained that unidentified defendants generally should be identified by their true names, but that discovery may be allowed to identify Jane Doe if the amended complaint proceeds beyond initial screening.

Disposition

The court found that the complaint, as pleaded, failed to state a claim as to all defendants. It granted Ontiveros leave to file an amended complaint by April 15, 2020, with the required caption, case number, and “AMENDED COMPLAINT” designation. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so claims and defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. If Ontiveros did not timely amend, or if the amended complaint did not correct the identified defects, the court said it would reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in part.