Flowers v. Maxfield

Background

Ferdinand Flowers, a state prisoner confined at San Quentin State Prison, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued Capt. April Maxfield, correctional officer; Charm Hedgemark, a psychiatric social worker; and Jacob Schmidt, a supervising psychologist. Flowers also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset; the court said that request would be addressed in a separate order.

Flowers alleged that he mailed two confidential letters to a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation executive staff member about his status and needs as a mental-health patient. He said he never received responses and that Capt. Maxfield later admitted possessing the letters and contacting Flowers’s mother about their contents. Flowers claimed that this interfered with his ability to communicate about his mental-health care.

Flowers also alleged that he asked Hedgemark and Schmidt for different depression medication and a transfer to another facility where he believed he could receive appropriate treatment. According to Flowers, both defendants declined to change his existing treatment, medication, or housing. He alleged that Schmidt also discouraged a non-party psychologist, Tenisha White, from further assisting him.

Screening and claims

Because Flowers was a prisoner suing governmental employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires facts showing both a violation of a constitutional or federal-law right and action by a person acting under state authority.

The court construed Flowers’s allegations as attempting to assert an Eighth Amendment claim based on interference with his mental-health-related mail and the defendants’ refusal to change his treatment. The court said Flowers had not alleged facts showing that he had a serious medical need that, if untreated, could cause further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton pain. His allegations that his depression medication was ineffective, that he was dissatisfied with his treatment and housing, and that another facility might better meet his needs did not explain why his existing treatment was inadequate or how failing to change it would cause the required harm.

The court also found no allegation that the defendants knew of an untreated serious medical need and failed to respond adequately. As to Maxfield, the complaint did not allege that she knew Flowers had such a need or that she intercepted the letters intending to interfere with his treatment. As to Hedgemark and Schmidt, the allegations suggested that they did not believe a change in treatment was appropriate or feasible, and Flowers did not allege that their conduct caused an injury.

The court separately considered a possible First Amendment claim concerning the mail. It explained that prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, although prison rules may restrict that right when reasonably related to legitimate prison-management interests. The court stated that the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit had not resolved whether prison officials may read non-legal mail, and that other courts had reached differing conclusions. The court therefore allowed Flowers to amend to allege facts showing that Maxfield had no legitimate prison-management interest in reading his mail.

Joinder

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 allows multiple claims against one opposing party, while Rule 20 permits multiple defendants in one action only when the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a common legal or factual question. The court said Flowers could join multiple claims against Maxfield, but could include all three defendants in this case only if he stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim against all three and otherwise satisfied Rule 20. If he could not do so, the court said he could not combine the mail claim against Maxfield with unrelated mental-health claims against Hedgemark and Schmidt in this action.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the complaint be DISMISSED with leave to amend. The order gave Flowers 28 days from the filing date to submit an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so claims or defendants omitted from the amended complaint would no longer be part of the case. The order also directed the Clerk to send Flowers two copies of the court’s complaint form with the order.