Witczak v. Lozano

Background

Daniel Robert Witczak, an inmate at Valley State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to seek relief for the violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights by someone acting under state authority. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early screening of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials.

Witczak named SVSP Warden Foss, officers Villalobos-Caballero, Gil-Rojas, Valles, and Muro, supervisor Sandoval, and ten unidentified defendants at SVSP and CMF. He alleged harassment by Caballero; poisoning or drugging of food, medication, and other items; retaliation after he complained; threats and assaults; failure to protect him; disclosure of personal records; interference with legal forms and communications; and electronic surveillance. He asserted claims under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as state-law criminal and prison-regulation violations.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because the allegations did not adequately state claims. The court found that many allegations were speculative and conclusory, and that Witczak often referred generally to “defendants” without identifying which person committed a particular violation. The court stated that an amended complaint must identify the date of each constitutional violation, the responsible defendant, and what that defendant did or failed to do.

The court also found that the complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which limits joining defendants and claims in one lawsuit to matters arising from the same transaction or related series of transactions and involving common legal or factual questions. Most claims concerned events at SVSP, while others appeared to concern CMF and Valley State Prison. The court found that the allegation of a conspiracy did not adequately connect those events. Witczak was directed to select claims that satisfy the joinder requirements and could bring unrelated constitutional claims in separate actions.

The court held that the Fourth Amendment claims were not cognizable. In particular, it rejected claims based on electronic surveillance of inmates and their cells. It dismissed those Fourth Amendment claims with prejudice.

Pending Motions and Order

The court denied Witczak’s request for appointment of counsel because he had not yet stated a cognizable claim and the speculative and conclusory allegations made his likelihood of success unclear. The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if circumstances required. The court also denied the request for a hair-follicle toxicity test and testing of a red chili, explaining that the court does not gather evidence for parties.

The court treated the filing labeled a request for a preliminary injunction as a discovery request for production of documents and denied it because discovery requests must be served on the opposing party rather than filed with the court. It denied the request for default judgment because the defendants did not yet have an obligation to answer or otherwise defend while the complaint stated no cognizable claims.

The court ordered Witczak to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The amended complaint had to be complete on its own, use the case caption and number specified by the court, and state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within that period would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.