Revelez v. Allison

Background

Richard Revelez, a state inmate who paid the filing fee and represented himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kathleen Allison, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and multiple unidentified defendants.

Revelez alleged that he was a Sensitive Needs Yard inmate placed in West Block at San Quentin State Prison, which apparently housed general-population inmates. After he told Sergeant D. Tomaso that he felt unsafe, Tomaso allegedly assured him that he would be safe. Revelez alleged that he was threatened the next day and assaulted by several inmates on March 16, 2018, requiring treatment at Marin General Hospital. He sought damages and injunctive relief.

Screening of the Complaint

Because a prisoner sued governmental officials, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal right was violated by a person acting under state authority.

The court applied the Eighth Amendment standard for failure to protect a prisoner from violence by other prisoners. A prisoner must allege an objectively serious danger and that the official knew of and deliberately disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s safety.

The court held that the allegations were sufficient to state a cognizable failure-to-protect claim against Sergeant D. Tomaso. In the court’s view, the allegations supported an inference that Tomaso knew Revelez faced a substantial risk of serious harm from being housed in West Block with Northern inmates who had threatened him, yet failed to move Revelez for his safety.

The court held that the allegations were insufficient to state a claim against Kathleen Allison. The complaint did not support an inference that Allison was personally aware of the risk to Revelez in March 2018 and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The court granted Revelez leave to amend to try to state a § 1983 claim against Allison. The court also explained that liability requires a defendant’s own conduct to have caused the deprivation of a federal right.

The court permitted Revelez to identify unknown defendants through discovery if he could describe their actions, and the date and location of the alleged deprivation, and if the allegations were sufficient to state a claim against them.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied Revelez’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It found that his incarceration, limited education, lack of legal knowledge, and other stated reasons did not distinguish his case from those of other prisoner litigants and did not establish exceptional circumstances.

The court terminated Revelez’s filing titled “Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order” because it appeared to be a proposed order rather than an actual motion. The court explained that any future request for emergency or preliminary relief would be subject to notice and the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

The court ordered that the remainder of Revelez’s claims be dismissed with leave to amend. He was given 28 days to file an amended complaint. Alternatively, he could notify the court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claim against Tomaso and strike the other claims and defendants. If he failed to respond as ordered, the case would proceed solely on the Tomaso claim, with the other claims and defendants dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order terminated Docket Nos. 3 and 6.