Trimble
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-09417
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In re Trimble: Judge Freeman dismissed Louis C. Trimble’s amended § 1983 complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Louis C. Trimble, who represented himself, was affected by the dismissal of his § 1983 complaint; the order also concerned allegations involving Officer Dollyworth, whom the court said was not properly named as a defendant.
What happened
In In re Louis C. Trimble, a state inmate filed a civil-rights case about his housing and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. He said he and his cellmate tested positive, were not moved promptly, and were later housed with other sick people. He sought money and release from prison.
The court had allowed Trimble to amend his complaint after identifying pleading problems, including his failure to identify a defendant, explain what each person did, and use the prison’s grievance process. The amended complaint still did not name a defendant, did not allege that Officer Dollyworth violated a constitutional right, repeated the request for release—which is not available through this type of case—and incorrectly stated that the prison had no grievance procedure.
The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and declined to allow another amendment. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the April 7, 2022 order.
The detailed version
- Trimble · No. 5:20-cv-09417
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 7, 2022
Background
Louis C. Trimble, a state inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. He initially alleged that his cellmate tested positive in August 2020, remained housed with him, and that Trimble tested positive ten days later. He sought money damages or release from prison.
The court dismissed the original complaint but allowed Trimble to amend it. The court told him that he needed to clarify where the events occurred, identify the defendant or defendants, describe what each person did, and use the prison’s grievance procedure before filing suit. It also explained that release from prison could not be obtained through a § 1983 action.
Amended Complaint and Screening
In the amended complaint, Trimble alleged that he and his cellmate tested positive around June 2020, that there was “no movement,” and that Officer Dollyworth would not move either of them until Trimble became “really sick.” He said that in August 2020 he was moved to tents outside where about 80 sick people were housed, that he thought he was going to die, and that he lost about 40 pounds. He again sought release and money.
The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. Under that screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must dismiss claims that fail to state a claim for relief or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal legal right and conduct by a person acting under state law.
Ruling
The court concluded that the amended complaint did not correct the deficiencies previously identified. Even assuming the events occurred at San Quentin State Prison, Trimble did not name a defendant in the action. Although he referred to Officer Dollyworth in the facts, he did not allege that Dollyworth’s actions caused a deprivation of a constitutional right. The court also noted that release from prison was unavailable through § 1983 and that the prison did have a grievance procedure.
Because Trimble had already received one opportunity to amend and the amended complaint did not correct the problems, the court found no good cause to allow another amendment. The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.