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 Captain L. M. Pennisi Jr., Warden M. B. Atchley, and the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He alleged that conditions in Housing Unit-A3 exposed him to serious risks because of damage to the prison’s ceiling, roof, walls, and cells. He also alleged flooding, mold, fungus, infestations, vermin, and a lack of cleaning supplies and equipment.

Saddozai asserted constitutional claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as alleged violations of California prison regulations. He sought declaratory relief, an order requiring changes to the conditions, and damages.

The court previously dismissed the original complaint and allowed Saddozai to amend it. He filed an amended complaint naming the same defendants.

Screening standard

Because Saddozai was a prisoner suing government officials, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The screening law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also stated that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

For a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

Claims against the defendants

The court said that the alleged inhumane living conditions implicated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. But it found that the amended complaint did not allege enough facts connecting those conditions to each defendant.

As to Captain Pennisi, Saddozai alleged that Pennisi was the captain for the A-Yard Facility, but did not allege specific facts showing that Pennisi knew about and disregarded an excessive risk to Saddozai’s health or safety. The court therefore found no cognizable claim against him.

As to Warden Atchley, Saddozai alleged that Atchley had notice and knowledge of the conditions and was responsible for policy decisions, regulations, or orders. The court found those allegations conclusory because Saddozai did not explain how Atchley acquired the alleged knowledge. The court also stated that, without sufficient facts showing that a subordinate was liable, Saddozai could not establish Atchley’s liability merely as a supervisor. Saddozai did not allege enough facts showing that Atchley was aware both of the unconstitutional conditions and of wrongful conduct by specific subordinates.

As to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the court found that Saddozai did not allege personal knowledge of the conditions or a failure to act. The allegation that the Director had received notices, reports, grievances, and appeals was too conclusory. The court also found insufficient allegations that the Director knew about both the conditions and wrongful conduct by Warden Atchley and failed to act.

Disposition

The court found that the amended complaint was nearly identical to the original complaint and did not correct the deficiencies previously identified. Because Saddozai had already received one opportunity to amend, the court found no good cause to allow another amendment. It dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.