Akers v. Labson-Freeman

Background

Montgomery Carl Akers, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint against Judges Beth Labson-Freeman and Edward Chen and Justice Department prosecutor Katherine Siereveld. He alleged that the defendants conspired to violate his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to “physical and psychological torture,” insufficient food, and inadequate medical care in federal prison.

Akers alleged that, on approximately November 22, 2022, Siereveld spoke privately with Judge Labson-Freeman in another case and said that she, Judge Chen, and Siereveld had placed Akers in a secret confinement facility for terrorists where he would serve his sentence under torturous conditions.

Screening standard

Because Akers sought relief from government employees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make the claimed violation plausible, rather than relying on labels, conclusions, or a formulaic statement of legal elements.

Court’s analysis

The court said it was unaware of authority holding that the alleged private communications themselves violated the Eighth Amendment. It also said there was no private right to sue under any Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules that the communications might have violated.

The court recognized that the prison conditions Akers described might violate the Eighth Amendment in some circumstances. But it found that his allegations that the defendants conspired to cause those conditions were conclusory. Akers identified only the alleged communications and did not explain how they caused the inhumane conditions or another Eighth Amendment violation.

The court separately held that any claim based on rulings by Judges Labson-Freeman or Chen was inadequate because federal judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for actions taken in their official duties, including rulings in their cases.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims and allowed Akers to amend. It permitted him to file an amended complaint alleging, if he could do so in good faith, conduct by each named defendant that caused an Eighth Amendment violation. The court required the amended complaint to be filed by September 30, 2023, to use the caption and civil case number specified in the order, and to include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and therefore had to include every claim Akers wished to pursue, including claims against M. Avila. It warned that the case would be dismissed if Akers did not timely file an amended complaint or if the amendment was insufficient.