Harris v. Atchley

Background

Patrick Harris, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Warden Matthew Atchley and Dr. Nguyen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That law allows a person to seek relief for a violation of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. Harris alleged that prison conditions at Salinas Valley State Prison violated the Eighth Amendment’s protection against dangerous conditions of confinement.

The court had previously dismissed Harris’s original complaint with leave to amend, meaning it gave him an opportunity to correct pleading deficiencies. Harris then filed an amended complaint.

Claims

Harris alleged that, from November 2018 through February 2019, flooding made cells unsafe and unhealthy. He described roof repairs, welded holes, leaking walls, attempts to push out water, and the distribution of soap, towels, and other absorbent materials. He alleged that officials did not permanently fix the leaks or move him to another cell.

Harris also alleged that he slipped and fell on February 4, 2019, injuring his lower back and requiring treatment at an outside hospital. He claimed there were no rails or ladders and that water on the floor contributed to the accident. After returning from the hospital, he said he was placed back in a top bunk for more than a week before being moved to a lower tier and lower bunk because no open cells were available.

Finally, Harris alleged that on May 18, 2019, staff housed him in another cell with water leaking from the roof despite his prior back injury. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of a prisoner’s claims against governmental entities or officials. The court explained that an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires both an objectively serious deprivation and deliberate indifference by the defendant. Deliberate indifference means knowing about and disregarding an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to reduce it.

The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the prolonged flooding could qualify as an objectively serious deprivation. It nevertheless held that Harris did not adequately allege deliberate indifference by any named defendant. The allegations showed that officials attempted to address the flooding through roof repairs, welding, towels, absorbent materials, and other measures. The fact that these efforts did not completely eliminate the safety problems did not establish deliberate indifference. The court characterized the alleged response as, at most, gross negligence, which it held was not actionable under § 1983 in this context.

Regarding the fall, the court held that Harris did not allege facts showing that a defendant knew the lack of a railing or ladder created an excessive risk and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. The court also relied on Harris’s allegation that the delay in moving him after his hospital visit resulted from there being no open cells, rather than from an intentional delay or failure by a defendant. The court further concluded that placing him in the second leaking cell did not establish deliberate indifference because the allegations indicated that staff selected it as a better option than the cell originally assigned, which had been deemed unserviceable.

Disposition

The court concluded that the amended complaint still failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Because Harris had already received one opportunity to amend and the deficiencies remained essentially the same, the court found no good cause to allow another amendment.

The amended complaint was DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The order was issued by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila on February 17, 2023.