Causey v. Alameda County Santa Rita Jail

Background

Lamar H. Causey, Sr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Alameda County Santa Rita Jail. He alleged that another inmate sprayed him with bodily fluids consisting of urine and feces. Causey said the exposure caused burning in his eyes, irritation down his throat, and vomiting for several days. He claimed the jail should not have allowed the inmate to participate in a program with other inmates because the inmate had documented behavioral problems. Causey sought damages.

His motion to proceed without paying the filing fee was left for decision in a separate order.

Initial Screening

Because Causey was a prisoner suing a governmental entity, the court conducted the preliminary review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires the court to dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that a right secured by the Constitution or federal law was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court identified two deficiencies.

First, the Prison Litigation Reform Act generally requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions. The court concluded that Causey had not exhausted the jail’s grievance process because he indicated in his complaint that he had not presented these facts through that process. The court explained that this requirement applies even when the prisoner seeks money damages, so long as the grievance process could provide some form of relief.

Second, the court concluded that Causey had not identified the constitutional right allegedly violated. The court stated that an amended complaint would need to include enough facts about each defendant’s actions or failure to act that allegedly caused a violation of Causey’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Causey was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint on the court’s form. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and case number from the order and state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the action.

The order further stated that the action would be subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies if appropriate. It also stated that failure to file an amended complaint within the permitted time would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice.