Amos v. Allison

Background

Donald J. Amos, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Amos had paid the filing fee.

Amos named California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials, a federal receiver, the Governor, a California Correctional Health Care Services doctor, and prison officials at California Institute for Men and San Quentin State Prison. His allegations concerned San Quentin’s handling of COVID-19 and other prison conditions.

The COVID-19 allegations included the refusal to provide free tests in early March 2020; inadequate masking and social distancing; poor ventilation; the lack of a separate hot-water hose bib for cleaning showers; the transfer of 121 inmates to San Quentin without immediate testing or quarantine; his contracting COVID-19 around July 5, 2020; limited access to hand sanitizer; infrequent disinfection; requiring quarantined inmates to leave their cells for meals; transfers of inmates who had tested positive; and ineffective sanitizer and cleaning. Other allegations concerned the removal of yard toilets, lack of outdoor exercise, long waits for showers, and an alleged halt in medical and dental care between March 17 and November 1, 2020.

Legal standards and analysis

The court explained that prison officials’ duties to provide basic necessities such as sanitation, medical care, and personal safety arise under the Eighth Amendment rather than the Fifth Amendment. To state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, a prisoner must allege an objectively serious deprivation and that an official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. The court also recognized that regular exercise, including outdoor exercise, is important to prisoners’ physical and psychological well-being.

The court stated that Amos had presented serious allegations that might state Eighth Amendment claims. It nevertheless dismissed the complaint because of several pleading problems:

- Claims about other people: Amos could sue only for injuries he personally suffered, not for another inmate’s experiences or general concerns about prison conditions. For example, claims about the alleged failure to provide medical or dental care could proceed only if Amos personally sought care, was denied care, and the denial showed deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. A claim about transferring COVID-positive inmates could proceed only if that transfer caused Amos a constitutional injury. - Conclusory allegations: Many claims lacked supporting facts and did not identify the actions of particular defendants. The court said that allegations about limited social distancing or hand sanitizer, without more, were insufficient. - Improperly joined claims: The court found that the complaint appeared to combine unrelated claims and defendants in violation of the federal rule governing joinder. The COVID-19 allegations concerning transfers, masks, medication lines, and meals did not arise from the same events or share a common legal or factual question with the allegations about removing toilets from the yard. The court instructed Amos to pursue related claims together and bring unrelated incidents in a separate action. - Supervisory liability: Section 1983 does not impose liability merely because a person supervised an alleged wrongdoer or employed that person. Amos needed to provide more information about how each defendant, including supervisory defendants, was directly involved in the alleged constitutional deprivation and how the defendant’s action or inaction showed deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Amos was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days addressing the identified defects. The amended complaint had to use the case caption and number specified by the court, include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and replace the earlier complaint rather than incorporate it by reference. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint as ordered would result in dismissal of the action without further notice. The order was signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.