Dalton v. Votari

Background

Alvin Dalton, identified as a California parolee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that he had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.

Dalton alleged that he had a bronchial condition and that his cellmate smoked five cigarettes a day. Although smoking was against prison rules, Dalton alleged that unnamed correctional officers did not enforce those rules. He said the resulting secondhand smoke harmed his health. Dalton requested a single cell, but M. Votari, who worked in the Health Care Correspondence and Appeals Branch of California Correctional Health Care Services, denied the request.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires review of certain complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. It explained that a complaint must provide enough factual information to make a claim plausible rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

Dalton characterized his exposure to secondhand smoke as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. To state such a claim, he had to plausibly allege both a sufficiently serious deprivation and that the defendant knowingly disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. He also had to show that Votari’s actions actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a federal right.

The court stated that Dalton’s medical condition plausibly warranted a smoke-free environment, but not necessarily a single cell. A smoke-free environment could also result from assigning him a nonsmoking cellmate or enforcing the prison’s nonsmoking rules. The court found no allegations showing that those alternatives were unavailable, or that Votari knew correctional officers would not enforce the rules or that Dalton could not be assigned a nonsmoking cellmate. Because Votari worked in the healthcare-services division, the complaint did not plausibly show that Votari could enforce the smoking rules, discipline smokers, or ensure that Dalton’s housing area remained smoke-free.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It instructed Dalton to file an amended complaint within 28 days that sued officials who were deliberately indifferent to his need to avoid secondhand smoke and who proximately caused his continued exposure. The amended complaint had to use the required caption and case number and include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that failure to amend as ordered would result in dismissal of the case.