Cruz v. Richards

Background

Robert Jesse Cruz filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by state officials. He alleged that he had a poultry allergy and that unnamed individuals denied him therapeutic boots prescribed by his doctor. He identified J. Richards as the warden of Pelican Bay State Prison and alleged that Richards knew about the allergy and was responsible for what employees did there. He also named grievance reviewers T. McDaniel, B. Woods, and S. Gates in connection with the boots claim.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. Cruz did not file a response.

Court’s reasoning

The court ruled that the two claims were unrelated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 because they involved different defendants acting at different times. The court directed Cruz to choose which claim he wished to pursue in this action.

The court concluded that the poultry-allergy allegations did not state a claim for relief. Cruz did not describe a specific incident in which he was injured or identify anyone directly responsible for a particular allergic reaction. The court also stated that he had not alleged facts showing the required deliberate-indifference state of mind for an Eighth Amendment prison-conditions claim. The court explained that a person cannot be held liable under § 1983 merely because of a supervisory position; the person must have personally participated in, directed, or knowingly failed to prevent the alleged violation.

For the therapeutic-boots claim, the court found that Cruz filed suit on February 3, 2021, but did not complete the administrative grievance process until June 4, 2021. The court held that a prisoner must complete available administrative remedies before filing suit, even if the process is completed while the lawsuit is pending. The court further held that the grievance reviewers could not be liable merely for denying grievances because reviewing a grievance does not itself cause or contribute to the underlying constitutional violation. The court also noted that the reviewers were following medical advice stating that Cruz did not meet the criteria for special orthotics at that time.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by June 20, 2022. Cruz had to choose one of the two claims and correct the deficiencies identified by the court.

The poultry-allergy claim was dismissed with leave to amend. The claims against the grievance reviewers were dismissed without leave to amend. The therapeutic-boots claim was dismissed without prejudice to raising it in an amended complaint. The court suggested that Cruz consider naming the person or people who denied the boot accommodation, such as the doctor who examined him in 2021.

The court warned that failure to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline, or filing an insufficient amended complaint, would result in dismissal of the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Judge Joseph C. Spero signed the order as chief magistrate judge.