Witczak v. Lozano

Background

Daniel Robert Witczak, an inmate at Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court screened his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or employees. The complaint named prison officials from Salinas Valley State Prison, California Medical Facility, and Valley State Prison.

Witczak alleged that Officer Villalodos-Caballero nearly collided with him, threatened him with an oleoresin capsicum can, aggressively searched him, and jabbed his sides. He also alleged that Caballero disclosed his commitment offense to other inmates, retaliated against him, and instructed officials at California Medical Facility to continue retaliating against him. Witczak alleged that Caballero and Officer J. Gil-Rajas drugged or poisoned his food, and that other officials failed to protect him or ignored dangerous conditions. He also alleged that Sergeant Park and E. F. Castrillo interfered with his prison grievances and that Caballero, Gil, Valles, Muro, and Garcia retaliated against him for filing grievances.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the amended complaint did not state a cognizable due-process claim. Excessive-force, physical-assault, and failure-to-protect allegations had to be analyzed under the Eighth Amendment rather than due process. The court also held that prisoners have no constitutional right to an effective grievance or appeal procedure.

The court dismissed Park and Castrillo from the action with prejudice because their alleged involvement was limited to reviewing or processing grievances. “With prejudice” means those claims could not be revived through another amendment in this action.

The court dismissed Foss and Lozano because Witczak made no specific allegations connecting them to a constitutional violation. The court allowed amendment of those claims. It likewise dismissed Valles, Muro, and Garcia because the allegations against them were too vague and conclusory, but allowed amendment.

The court dismissed with prejudice the Eighth Amendment claims against Caballero based on the November 26, 2018 near collision and the November 27, 2018 denial of Witczak’s escort request, threat with an OC can, aggressive search, and jabbing. The court dismissed with leave to amend Caballero’s claims based on allegedly disclosing Witczak’s commitment offense, various acts or omissions, directing retaliation at California Medical Facility, and drugging or poisoning Witczak’s food. “With leave to amend” means the court allowed Witczak to try to correct the pleading. The court also dismissed Gil’s Eighth Amendment claims with leave to amend and dismissed the remaining Eighth Amendment claims with leave to amend because they did not identify enough specific facts or connect particular defendants to particular conduct.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim with leave to amend. It said Witczak had not identified protected conduct or explained how that conduct related to the alleged events, and noted that verbal harassment and threats alone generally do not state a claim under § 1983.

Disposition

The court ordered Witczak to file a second amended complaint within 28 days. That complaint had to include every claim and defendant he wished to pursue and could not add unrelated claims. If he failed to file a compliant second amended complaint on time, the court stated that the action would be dismissed without further notice.