Oxley v. Madrigal

Background

Samuel Russ Oxley, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy Madrigal, Deputy Santiago, Sergeant Spangler, Lieutenant T. Rossberg, and the Medical Department Staff at the West County Detention Facility. He alleged that, during a lockdown, Deputy Madrigal denied him access to a restroom even though he had a medical “blue slip” permitting restroom access. Oxley said he was forced to defecate into a plastic bag in his cell. He also alleged that Deputy Santiago denied him a shower until the facility’s scheduled “free time.”

Oxley further alleged that his restroom permission was revoked after he filed grievances and that Lieutenant Rossberg had directed medical staff not to issue such permission during lockdowns. He claimed that Lieutenant Rossberg asked him to drop his complaint and that Deputy Madrigal later harassed him about suspected contraband. Oxley asserted claims relating to the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, retaliation, and equal protection, and sought damages for mental anguish and humiliation.

Screening and analysis

Because Oxley sought relief from government officers and employees, the court was required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Screening is an early review to determine whether a prisoner’s complaint states a claim for relief or seeks relief from an immune defendant.

The court found that Oxley had not alleged enough facts for an Eighth Amendment claim based on the denial of restroom or shower access. The opinion explained that the seriousness of a sanitation deprivation depends in part on its duration. The alleged restroom denial appeared to have lasted only a few hours, and the shower denial about two and a half hours. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately allege that Deputy Madrigal or Deputy Santiago knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Oxley’s health or safety.

The court found the ADA claim deficient because Oxley stated that he was an “ADA” inmate but did not explain his specific disability or allege the required elements of disability discrimination. The court also noted that monetary damages under Title II of the ADA require a showing of discriminatory intent.

The court found sufficient facts for a First Amendment retaliation claim against Lieutenant Rossberg based on the alleged revocation of Oxley’s medical blue slip and against Deputy Madrigal based on the alleged contraband-related harassment. The protected conduct was Oxley’s filing of a grievance. The court found the allegations insufficient to state retaliation claims against the other defendants.

The equal-protection claim was deficient because Oxley did not identify a protected class, explain how particular defendants discriminated against him, or identify similarly situated prisoners who received different treatment. The claims against the Medical Department and individual medical personnel were also deficient because Oxley did not allege sufficient facts connecting them to a cognizable claim under the asserted legal theories.

Order

The court ordered that the complaint stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Lieutenant Rossberg and Deputy Madrigal. It dismissed with leave to amend the Eighth Amendment claim concerning restroom and shower access, the ADA claim, retaliation claims against the other defendants, the equal-protection claim against any defendant, and the claims against the Medical Department and specific medical personnel.

Oxley was given 28 days from the filing of the order to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies. Alternatively, he could notify the court that he wished to strike the deficient claims and proceed solely on the cognizable claims. The court stated that failing to respond would result in dismissal with prejudice of the deficient claims. The court also denied Oxley’s request for copies and service of subpoenas as premature. The court said that his request to proceed without paying the filing fee would be addressed in a separate order.