Frary v. Atkinson
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-02579
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Frary v. Atkinson, Judge Orrick dismissed the mold-conditions claim without prejudice because it lacked sufficient facts and links to defendants.
Daniel Robert Frary’s federal civil-rights action was dismissed without prejudice. The named defendants received judgment in their favor, while Frary was permitted to seek reopening by filing a qualifying amended complaint.
What happened
Daniel Robert Frary alleged that mold covered the ceiling and walls of his jail cell, violating the Eighth Amendment. He sued under a federal civil-rights law, but his amended complaint did not adequately connect the named defendants to the alleged problem.
The court also found that Frary did not provide enough information about the mold’s extent, how long he was exposed, or how it harmed him or created significant health concerns. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants, while allowing Frary to seek to reopen the case by filing a qualifying amended complaint.
Judge William Orrick ordered that any motion to reopen include an amended complaint identifying responsible people and facts showing a substantial deprivation. The amended complaint must use the court’s form and include all claims and defendants Frary wishes to pursue.
The detailed version
- Frary v. Atkinson · No. 3:22-cv-02579
- William Orrick
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
Daniel Robert Frary brought an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. He alleged that he was placed in a cell with black mold on the ceiling and walls.
The court had previously dismissed Frary’s original complaint with permission to amend. That order found that Frary had not connected Sheriff Gregory Ahern to any alleged wrongdoing and had not explained why or how the mold amounted to a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Court’s Analysis
The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer. The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires facts showing both a violation of a constitutional or federal right and action by a person acting under state law.
The amended complaint named Atkinson, Carausu, Taylor, Landrum, and Gaston, but only Landrum appeared in the factual allegations. Frary did not establish that Landrum was responsible for overseeing cell cleanliness or otherwise connect the named defendants to the alleged mold-related deprivation.
The court further explained that severe or prolonged sanitation problems can violate the Eighth Amendment. But Frary stated only, without additional detail, that black mold was present on his cell’s ceiling and walls. He did not describe the mold’s extent, the duration of his exposure, or how it injured him or created significant health concerns. The court therefore found that the allegations did not show a deprivation substantial enough to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the civil-rights action without prejudice. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file. Frary may seek to reopen the action by filing a motion labeled “MOTION TO REOPEN” that includes an amended complaint. Any such complaint must identify facts showing a substantial deprivation, link each defendant to the alleged wrongdoing, use the court’s form, include the case caption and number, and be labeled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” It must include all claims and defendants Frary wishes to pursue and may not incorporate earlier complaints by reference.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.