Tellez v. Warden

Background

Irvin Tellez, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officers at Salinas Valley State Prison. The defendants named in the complaint were John Doe #1, identified as the Director of Adult Institutions of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; the prison’s Warden; John Doe #2, identified as the Chief of Plant Operations; and Sandoval, identified as a plumber.

Tellez alleged that plumbing problems, leaks, a broken toilet, and a loss of power and lighting caused inhumane conditions in his cell for approximately 57 days, from March 17, 2022, through May 13, 2022. He alleged that Sandoval responded to work orders but did not fix the problems promptly. Tellez also alleged that the toilet remained broken for part of the period, that he was moved to a neighboring cell with similar problems, and that the lack of power prevented him from using a hot pot, television, or radio. He alleged that without lighting he could do little after sunset. He sought damages.

Court’s analysis

Because Tellez was a prisoner suing governmental officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. At this stage, 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 stated that claims filed without a lawyer must be read liberally.

To state a claim under § 1983, Tellez had to allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court analyzed the allegations under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and requires prison officials to provide basic necessities of life.

The court explained that an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires allegations showing both an objectively serious deprivation and that the prison official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded it. The court stated that Tellez had not described how the conditions seriously threatened his physical or mental well-being. Even assuming the conditions were objectively serious, the court found that the complaint did not adequately allege the required knowledge and disregard by the defendants.

The complaint specifically described Sandoval’s conduct, but it did not allege that Sandoval knew the conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm and drew that conclusion. The complaint did not mention the Warden or Chief of Plant Operations in its factual allegations or describe their knowledge or actions concerning Tellez’s conditions. The court also stated that it was doubtful the Director of Adult Institutions was personally aware of Tellez’s specific circumstances.

The court further explained that the John Doe defendants could be identified through their stated positions if those positions existed, but Tellez still had to allege sufficient facts tying each defendant personally to an Eighth Amendment violation. Liability under § 1983 requires a defendant to have proximately caused the deprivation of the federal right through an act, participation in another’s act, or omission of a legally required act.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It gave Tellez 28 days from the filing date of the order to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the caption and case number specified in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint, and claims or defendants omitted from it would no longer be part of the case.

The court warned that failing to respond as ordered would result in dismissal with prejudice of the action for failure to state a claim, without further notice. The court also stated that Tellez’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on May 17, 2023.