Saddozai v. Atchley

Background

Shikeb Saddozai, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Capt. L. M. Pennisi Jr., Warden M. B. Atchley, and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He alleged that, from October 1, 2020, to the filing of the complaint, he was housed in Housing Unit-A3 at Salinas Valley State Prison under dangerous and unsanitary conditions. The alleged conditions included structural damage to the ceiling, roof, walls, and cells; flooding; mold; fungus; infestations; vermin; and a lack of cleaning supplies and equipment. He sought declaratory relief, an order requiring changes, and damages.

Saddozai also attempted to bring the action for himself and other inmates who appeared similarly situated. The court treated that attempt as a request for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. His motion to proceed without paying the filing fee was reserved for a separate order.

Class Certification

The court denied class certification. It explained that a person proceeding without a lawyer cannot adequately represent the interests of other people in a class action. The other individuals listed as plaintiffs were therefore removed from the action. The court stated that they would have to file separate actions if they wished to pursue claims on their own.

Screening and Claims

Because Saddozai was a prisoner suing governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state authority.

Eighth Amendment

The court held that Saddozai’s description of inhumane living conditions implicated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. But it found that he had not alleged enough facts to show that any named defendant was individually responsible. In particular, merely identifying Pennisi as the captain of the A-Yard Facility did not show that Pennisi knew about and disregarded an excessive risk to Saddozai’s health or safety, or that Pennisi took or failed to take a specific action that caused the alleged deprivation.

The court also found the claims against Atchley and the CDCR Director deficient. A supervisor may be liable for personal involvement or for a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the constitutional violation. Saddozai’s allegations that Atchley had notice and knowledge were conclusory because they did not explain how Atchley learned of the conditions or identify the wrongful conduct of particular subordinates. The allegations against the CDCR Director likewise did not show personal knowledge of the conditions or knowledge of wrongful conduct by Atchley followed by a failure to act.

The court granted leave to amend the Eighth Amendment claim. It said Saddozai would need to provide specific facts showing what each defendant did or failed to do, what each defendant knew, and how each defendant caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments

The court dismissed with leave to amend the claims based on the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It found no allegations of an unreasonable search or seizure supporting a Fourth Amendment claim, no relevant criminal-proceeding, federal due-process, or takings allegations supporting a Fifth Amendment claim, and no facts showing a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Saddozai’s references to denial of equal protection and equal treatment potentially implicated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but the complaint did not identify the relevant class of prisoners or explain how he was treated differently from similarly situated inmates. The court allowed him to try to state an equal protection claim in an amended complaint by supplying sufficient supporting facts.

State-Law Claims

The court dismissed with leave to amend Saddozai’s claims based on equivalent state constitutional provisions and California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 3300, 3301, and 3303. Those provisions did not themselves establish a federal right enforceable under § 1983. The court also found that Saddozai had not provided specific facts showing how any named defendant violated the cited state provisions. It allowed him to attempt to state state-law claims against specific defendants in an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Saddozai was given 28 days from the filing of the order to submit an amended complaint using the case caption and number and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The amended complaint would replace the original complaint; claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case. The action would proceed with Saddozai as the sole plaintiff. The order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim, without further notice.