Wilkins v. Baker

Background

Timothy D. Wilkins filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The court reviewed his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary screening of a prisoner’s action seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. The court had previously dismissed his initial complaint with leave to amend because it offered only a conclusory retaliation allegation.

The amended complaint named M. Gaitan, L.V. Perez, E. Cabrera, Wright, Stribling, T. Gourdine, and B. Baker. Wilkins alleged that, during intake, he told Gaitan he was not gay; Gaitan then housed him with a gay inmate. He alleged that he questioned other officials about the placement, filed a grievance, and later observed Perez and other guards laughing at him. He also alleged that he was eventually placed in his own living quarters after committing a rule violation and that Baker retaliated against him by issuing a rules violation report concerning that conduct.

Court’s Analysis

The court evaluated the alleged safety claim under the Eighth Amendment. To state such a claim, a complaint must allege an objectively serious deprivation and that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety. The court held that the amended complaint did not explain how being housed with a gay inmate exposed Wilkins to an excessive safety risk. It therefore dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim against Gaitan, Perez, Cabrera, Wright, Stribling, and Gourdine with leave to amend if Wilkins could truthfully correct the deficiency.

The court also evaluated the First Amendment retaliation claim against Baker. Wilkins alleged that Baker falsely issued the rules violation report in retaliation for the housing grievance, but the amended complaint acknowledged that Wilkins committed the conduct underlying the report. The court held that this acknowledgment contradicted the allegation that Baker falsely issued the report in retaliation and dismissed the First Amendment claim against Baker with prejudice.

Disposition

The court dismissed the First Amendment claim against Baker with prejudice and dismissed Baker from the action. It dismissed with leave to amend the Eighth Amendment claim against Gaitan, Perez, Cabrera, Wright, Stribling, and Gourdine. Wilkins was given 28 days from the date of the order to file a second amended complaint addressing the identified deficiency. He could not add new claims, and the new complaint had to include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue. The court stated that failure to file a compliant second amended complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.