Tamrat v. Marlowe

Background

Herman Tamrat, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint alleged several kinds of mistreatment while he was in custody, including excessive force, inadequate medical care, retaliation, harassment, problems involving food, and failure to properly process or investigate grievances.

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint against governmental defendants. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under state law.

Claims and Analysis

Tamrat alleged that on June 9, 2019, deputies Marlowe and Tamayo knocked him to the ground, painfully bent his hands, wrists, and arms, and slammed him onto the ground, injuring his head. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to state an excessive-force claim against Marlowe and Tamayo. Because Tamrat was a pretrial detainee, the question is whether the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

Tamrat also alleged that Martin ended a medical evaluation after painfully squeezing his hands and wrists, ignored his cries of pain, and acted in retaliation after he accused Martin of lying in an earlier medical evaluation. The court dismissed these claims with leave to amend. For the medical-care claim, Tamrat needed to provide more information showing that the pain caused during the examination was unrelated to evaluating his injury and therefore reflected inadequate care. For the retaliation claim, he needed to show that Martin caused him injury because of Tamrat's earlier protected conduct.

Tamrat alleged that deputy Marlowe made derogatory and racist comments, denied him toilet paper on one occasion, and coughed or sneezed over his food tray. The court dismissed these allegations with leave to amend, explaining that isolated verbal harassment does not state a § 1983 claim, even when the harassment is racially motivated. The court also explained that food violates constitutional standards only when it is prepared under conditions so unsanitary that it becomes unwholesome and threatens the health of people who eat it.

The court dismissed Tamrat's claim concerning the handling and investigation of his inmate grievances because there is no constitutional right to a prison grievance or administrative-appeal system.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Tamrat had to file an amended complaint by February 16, 2021, using the required case caption and case number and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The order explained that an amended complaint completely replaces the original, so Tamrat had to include every claim he wished to pursue and could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. If he did not file an amended complaint, the case would proceed only on the excessive-force claim. The order also warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.