Perry v. Ahern

Background

Perry filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s case against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. The court had separately allowed Perry to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The complaint named deputy technicians in the Alameda County I Building, Alameda County Medical Wellpath, classification officer Krause, Alameda County Sheriff J. Ahern, deputies, and dental staff at Santa Rita Jail. Perry sought $200,000 in compensatory damages for mental and physical pain.

Allegations

Perry alleged that officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs after he was diagnosed with phimosis and required circumcision. He said he submitted medical slips requesting continued antibiotics and medical attention, but officials had not responded by December 3, 2022.

He also alleged that officials failed to respond when he used an emergency button because he felt a seizure coming on, and that he later suffered a seizure. He said officials ignored him again the next night and that he did not receive tracking numbers for a grievance and other requests.

Perry alleged that classification officer Krause retaliated against him for filing grievances by convincing Mental Health to lift his “BHI,” which Perry said endangered his life. He also alleged that unidentified officials denied him and his cellmate medical shoes, and that he experienced prolonged dental pain and inadequate dental care.

Reasons for dismissal

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because the allegations were too conclusory to state cognizable Section 1983 claims. A claim under Section 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law.

As to the retaliation claim against Krause, the court found that Perry had not provided enough facts showing that Krause took adverse action because of Perry’s protected grievance activity, that the action chilled Perry’s rights, and that it did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court stated that lifting BHI constituted an adverse action, but found the remaining allegations insufficiently detailed.

For the other claims, the court found that Perry had not linked specific individuals to the alleged violations. The court identified missing details about the medical treatment he needed, officials’ knowledge of risks to his health, the alleged effect of lifting BHI, the reasons he needed medical shoes, the alleged retaliation, who denied dental care, and what dental treatment he needed.

The court also found that the dental-care allegation was contradicted by an attached grievance response showing that Perry saw a dentist on October 9, 2022, one month after his first request for dental treatment.

Finally, the court cautioned that Wellpath and Sheriff Ahern could not be held liable merely because they employed or supervised people who allegedly violated Perry’s rights. The court explained that a supervisor claim requires specific facts connecting the supervisor to the alleged deprivation, such as causation, inadequate training or supervision, a responsible policy or custom, or knowledge of misconduct followed by a failure to act.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. Perry was ordered to file an amended complaint within 28 days of the order. The amended complaint must use the caption and civil case number stated in the order, include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, include every claim and defendant Perry wishes to pursue, and replace the original complaint. The order states that Perry may not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference.

Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on July 26, 2023.