Foster v. Crosby

Background

Michael Barkarri Foster filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law. Foster alleged that, in February 2021, prison guards at Pelican Bay State Prison battered, kicked, punched, and twice stabbed him, violating the Eighth Amendment.

Foster named 15 defendants. The complaint specifically described conduct by Sergeant Puente, alleging that Puente ordered Foster’s cell door opened “so that I can be physically harmed.” Foster also mentioned doctors, including Dr. Thomas, who allegedly did not take his injuries seriously, but Dr. Thomas was not named as a defendant.

Screening standard

Because Foster was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also said that it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while still requiring enough factual matter to make liability plausible.

To state a claim under § 1983, Foster had to allege both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law. He also had to describe each defendant’s individual actions or participation. The court explained that a supervisor is not automatically liable for an employee’s conduct merely because of the supervisory relationship.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Foster stated a claim against Puente. It found that Foster did not state claims against the other 14 defendants because the complaint did not describe specific actions by those defendants tying them to the alleged wrongdoing.

The court instructed Foster that, if he intended to pursue claims about inadequate medical care, he needed to name each person involved and allege specific facts showing deliberate indifference. The court defined deliberate indifference as knowing that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarding that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it.

Disposition

The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed in part with leave to file an amended complaint by July 11, 2022. Foster was required to use the court’s form, include the case caption and case number, write “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page, include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and not incorporate earlier pleadings by reference.

The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint complying with the order could result in dismissal of the 14 defendants against whom no facts were then alleged under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.