Flores v. Murphy

Background

Davin Willie Flores, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action against “Classification Sergeant” E. Murphy, “Classification” Deputy E. Arteaga, and “West County and Martinez Detention facility medical staff.” He alleged that he had suffered a gunshot wound to his right knee, had needed crutches since May 2021, and was housed in “D module B Side” at the Martinez Detention Facility after an altercation with another inmate.

Flores alleged that the module lacked accessibility features, including ramps, and that he nearly fell while trying to shower. He also alleged that his knee worsened after he was moved there and that fluid had to be removed from his knee joints twice. He sought declaratory relief, an order requiring corrective action, and damages. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must preliminarily review a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or governmental officer or employee. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. For a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under state law violated a federal right.

Eighth Amendment claim

The court understood Flores to be attempting to allege an Eighth Amendment claim based on unsafe conditions of confinement. Such a claim requires facts showing both an objectively serious deprivation and deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.

The court found Flores’s allegations insufficient because they did not show that a named defendant acted with deliberate indifference. Flores did not explain Murphy’s or Arteaga’s involvement in placing him in D module, or what made either person responsible for the alleged unsafe conditions. His statement of claim did not mention either defendant. The court also said Flores could not sue “medical staff” as a group; he had to identify particular medical staff members and describe each person’s conduct or role.

The court granted Flores leave to amend so he could try to provide facts connecting Murphy, Arteaga, and specifically identified medical staff members to an alleged violation of his right to safe conditions under the Eighth Amendment.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court said Flores might be able to state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That law prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified person with a disability from its services, programs, or activities, denying that person their benefits, or discriminating against the person because of the disability.

To plead such a claim, Flores needed to allege facts showing that he had a qualifying disability; that he was otherwise eligible for a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; that he was excluded, denied benefits, or discriminated against; and that the exclusion, denial, or discrimination occurred because of his disability. The court explained that public entities include state or local governments and their departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities. It noted that the Martinez Detention Facility is operated by Contra Costa County.

The court allowed Flores to amend to include an Americans with Disabilities Act claim by alleging all necessary elements and naming the appropriate defendant or defendants. The opinion did not decide that Flores had adequately pleaded such a claim.

Disposition

After screening, the court found that the complaint, as pleaded, failed to state a claim as to all named defendants. It granted Flores permission to file an amended complaint by March 25, 2022, with the required caption, case number, and “AMENDED COMPLAINT” designation. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and that claims omitted from the amended complaint would no longer be part of the case.

The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. It warned that if Flores did not timely file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint did not correct the identified defects, the court might reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. The order also directed the clerk to provide Flores with two copies of the court’s form complaint.