Foster v. Crosby

Background

Michael Barkarri Foster alleged that, on February 1, 2021, correctional officers C. Crosby, D. Eades, M. Shaffer, and B. Tubbs entered his cell at Pelican Bay and battered and stabbed him. Foster alleged that Sergeant Puente ordered his cell door opened and that Officer Sullenger opened the door. He did not allege that either Puente or Sullenger participated directly in the beating or stabbing.

After Foster was handcuffed and removed from the cell, he allegedly saw Officer Shaffer obtain bleach and heard Shaffer comment that blood was on the floor. Foster also alleged that Puente said, “We’re just going to say that the batteries were dead in the camera.” Foster sought an injunction against all defendants, but he was later transferred to another prison.

Motion to dismiss

The defendants moved for partial dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. They argued that Puente and Sullenger were not integral participants in the alleged constitutional violation and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. They also challenged Foster’s request for injunctive relief.

The court explained that a person may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a constitutional violation only if the person was an integral participant in the unlawful conduct. The court described that standard as requiring allegations that the defendant either knew about and accepted the unconstitutional conduct as part of a common plan or set in motion acts that the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, would cause the constitutional injury.

Rulings on Sullenger and Puente

The court granted the motion concerning the claims against Sullenger and dismissed those claims. Foster alleged only that Sullenger opened the cell door as instructed. The court found no allegation showing that Sullenger knew of or accepted the alleged attack as part of a common plan, or that he set in motion acts that would cause the constitutional injury. Because the claims were dismissed on that basis, the court did not decide whether Sullenger was entitled to qualified immunity.

The court denied the motion concerning the claims against Puente. Although Foster did not allege that Puente personally beat or stabbed him, he alleged that Puente ordered the cell door opened and made the statement about saying the camera batteries were dead. The court held that those allegations raised questions about Puente’s involvement that could not be resolved through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Injunctive relief and next steps

The court granted the motion concerning Foster’s request for injunctive relief and denied that request as moot because Foster had been transferred to another prison. The court therefore did not address the defendants’ arguments that the request was too unclear or failed the statutory requirements that prison-related prospective relief be narrowly drawn and no more intrusive than necessary.

The court directed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment, or a notice concerning such a motion, by November 1, 2023. Foster’s opposition would be due within 45 days after the motion was filed, and the defendants’ reply would be due within 15 days after the opposition. The clerk was directed to terminate Sullenger as a defendant and terminate all pending motions.