Lucas v. Atchley

Background

Dwayne Lucas, a state prisoner housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had dismissed the action on October 19, 2021, after Lucas failed to pay the filing and administrative fees or submit a complete application to proceed without paying them. That dismissal was stated to be without prejudice to a request to reopen the case accompanied by the required payment or application.

Lucas later filed a request to reopen the case and a complete application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court stated in a separate order that Lucas had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Claims in the Complaint

The complaint named Salinas Valley State Prison Warden M. Atchley and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director Kathleen Allison, both in their official capacities. Lucas argued that he should be, or was, eligible for consideration for release under a high-risk medical release program announced by Governor Newsom. He also alleged that his underlying health conditions, including hypertension, put him at high risk of contracting COVID-19 and that prison officials were not adequately protecting prisoners from COVID-19. He characterized the failure to release him immediately as equivalent to condemning him to death and stated that it had overturned or eliminated his possibility of parole under the youth-offender parole law identified in the complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires an initial review of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or official. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal statutory right by someone acting under state law.

The court dismissed the complaint because Lucas had not alleged a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. It directed him, in any amended complaint, to identify the federal constitutional provision or federal law involved and to explain what Atchley and Allison specifically did that violated it. The court also explained that supervisors cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because they supervise others or are responsible for their actions; the complaint must allege personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection to the alleged violation.

Disposition

The court granted Lucas’s request to reopen the action, vacated the earlier order of dismissal and related judgment, and ordered the Clerk to reopen the case. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Lucas had 28 days to file an amended complaint containing all claims and defendants he wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within that period would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.