Perdomo v. Plumber

Background

Carlos Perdomo, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison administrators at Salinas Valley State Prison. The operative complaint alleged that Perdomo’s cell had a clogged sink, raw sewage coming from the sink drain, and sewage leaking from a floor drain. Perdomo alleged that these conditions continued for weeks, caused him to lose his appetite and miss meals, and exposed him to possible waterborne diseases.

Perdomo sued Warden Muniz, Chief Deputy Warden R. Binkele, and Correctional Administrator E. Borla in their individual and official capacities. The court had previously found that the amended complaint stated a legally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim against them.

Perdomo said he notified correctional officers about the plumbing problem beginning April 8, 2017, but that the problem was not repaired until he was moved to another cell on May 24, 2017. He filed a prison grievance that same day. The grievance was partly granted because he had been moved and a work request had been submitted, but his request for money was partly denied because the reviewer lacked authority to award it.

Summary-judgment arguments

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party. They argued that they could not be held liable merely because they occupied supervisory positions, that they had not acted with deliberate indifference to a serious health or safety risk, that qualified immunity protected them from damages, and that the Eleventh Amendment barred Perdomo’s official-capacity claims for money damages.

The court explained that a supervisor may be liable under § 1983 for personal involvement or for a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s conduct and a constitutional violation. A supervisor cannot be held liable solely because of responsibility for another employee’s actions.

Supervisor liability and deliberate indifference

The court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether the defendants knew about continuing plumbing problems. Perdomo relied in part on an earlier case involving similar unsanitary conditions in Facility B, Building 2 at the prison. The court concluded that a jury could infer from that evidence that the defendants knew about recurring plumbing problems and failed to act.

For the Eighth Amendment claim, the court explained that prison conditions must be sufficiently serious and that the official must have acted with “deliberate indifference,” meaning the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. Assuming the conditions in Perdomo’s cell were objectively serious, the court found a factual dispute about whether the defendants knew of and disregarded the risk. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim and on the supervisor-liability theory.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a protection from civil damages when an official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The defendants argued that no clearly established law required high-level prison administrators who did not directly handle maintenance requests to monitor individual cells or arrange repairs.

The court rejected that argument at the summary-judgment stage. It distinguished the authority relied on by the defendants and found evidence that plumbing problems had continued across parts of the prison for an extended period. If the defendants knowingly did nothing about persistent hazardous and unsanitary conditions, a jury could find that their conduct amounted to criminal recklessness. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity and denied the motion on that ground.

Official-capacity claims and disposition

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Perdomo’s claims for money damages based on acts by the defendants in their official capacities. It granted the motion in part as to those claims and dismissed the official-capacity claims against Muniz, R. Binkele, and E. Borla with prejudice.

The court denied the motion on the merits of Perdomo’s Eighth Amendment claims, on supervisor liability, and on qualified immunity. It referred the case to Judge Robert M. Illman for settlement proceedings under the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program. The order stated that the remaining case would be handled as necessary for those settlement proceedings.