Foster v. Sprouse

Background

Michael Barkarri Foster, who was incarcerated, alleged that Pelican Bay prison guard Sprouse threatened his life around February 27 and 28, 2020. Foster brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. The complaint named Sprouse and CDCR as defendants.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Foster was a prisoner suing a government employee, the court conducted an initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that ordinary disrespectful, insulting, vulgar, or harassing language generally is not enough for a § 1983 claim. However, verbal harassment intended to humiliate or endanger an inmate may be actionable when the comments are unusually serious for a prison setting and cause psychological harm.

Foster alleged only that Sprouse threatened his life and that he feared Sprouse would carry out the threat. The court held that the complaint needed more factual detail, including the actual words spoken and the context. Without those facts, the court could not determine whether the alleged conduct met the applicable standard. The court therefore dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by November 1, 2021.

The court also ruled that CDCR was not a proper defendant as the complaint was then alleged. The clerk was directed to terminate CDCR as a defendant and enter Sprouse as the sole defendant.

Motion for Appointed Counsel

Foster asked the court to appoint counsel. The court explained that appointed counsel for a person unable to afford a lawyer is reserved for exceptional circumstances, considering both the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to present the claims in light of the legal issues’ complexity. The court found that Foster’s filings were clear and that the case did not present complex legal issues. Judge William Orrick therefore denied the motion for appointment of counsel, while stating that the court could reconsider if circumstances later warranted it.

Instructions for Amended Complaint

The court instructed Foster that an amended complaint would replace the earlier complaint and must include every claim and defendant he wished to pursue. It had to use the case caption and number in the order, state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, and appear on the court’s form. The court warned that failing to file a proper amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The clerk was also directed to terminate the docket entry for the counsel motion.